KALA AND ANR. versus MADHO PARSHAD VAIDYA

KALA AND ANR. versus MADHO PARSHAD VAIDYA

The landlord failed to discharge the initial burden to prove subletting; tenant explained permissive possession of appellant No.2 as manager; findings of appellate authority and High Court were not based on correct appreciation of evidence and thus set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Kala Devi; Appellant: Ravinder Kapur; Respondent: Madho Parshad Vaidya
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of High Court and appellate authority set aside; order of Rent Controller restored.
Legal Topics
Subletting, Burden of Proof, Possession, Eviction of Tenant
Rent and Eviction Subletting Burden of Proof Possession Eviction of Tenant

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kala Devi

Appellant

Ravinder Kapur

Appellant

Madho Parshad Vaidya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant sublet the premises to a third party without landlord's consent under Section 14(2)(ii) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987
  2. 2 Whether landlord discharged the burden to prove subletting

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord failed to discharge the initial burden to prove subletting; tenant explained permissive possession of appellant No.2 as manager; findings of appellate authority and High Court were not based on correct appreciation of evidence and thus set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of High Court and appellate authority set aside; order of Rent Controller restored.

Orders

  • Orders of High Court and appellate authority set aside.
  • Order of Rent Controller restored.