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 satisfactorily explained how the alleged sub-tenant had permissive possession as manager. No parting of possession or subletting was established; findings of appellate authority and High Court ignored evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Kala; Respondent: Madho Parshad Vaidya
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Himachal Pradesh High Court Decision in Civil Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of High Court and appellate authority set aside; Rent Controller's order restored.
Legal Topics
Subletting, Burden of Proof, Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987
Rent and Eviction Subletting Burden of Proof Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987

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

Appellant

Madho Parshad Vaidya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Himachal Pradesh High Court Decision in Civil Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant parted with possession and sublet the premises to appellant No.2 under Section 14(2)(ii) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord failed to discharge the initial burden to prove subletting. Tenant satisfactorily explained how the alleged sub-tenant had permissive possession as manager. No parting of possession or subletting was established; findings of appellate authority and High Court ignored evidence.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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