KARAM SINGH SOBTI & ANR. versus SHRI PRATAP CHAND & ANR.

KARAM SINGH SOBTI & ANR. versus SHRI PRATAP CHAND & ANR.

It is competent for the High Court under s. 35 of the 1952 Act to interfere with findings of acquiescence on the ground of absence of evidence; the present case falls under the exception provided by the 1952 Act, and the majority holds that s. 57 of the 1958 Act does not override the substantive rights/obligations created by the 1952 Act in pending proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Karam Singh Sobti; Respondent 1: Shri Pratap Chand; Respondent 2: Automobile Association of Upper India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 August 1963
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court Judgment in Civil Revision No. 427 D of 1957
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Delhi Rent Control Act, Revisional Jurisdiction, Eviction, Subletting, Statutory Interpretation
Rent Control Property Law Delhi Rent Control Act Revisional Jurisdiction Eviction Subletting Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karam Singh Sobti

Appellant

Shri Pratap Chand

Respondent 1

Automobile Association of Upper India

Respondent 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court Judgment in Civil Revision No. 427 D of 1957

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was competent under s. 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 to interfere with lower appellate court's finding of acquiescence on the ground of no evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are governed by the repealed 1952 Act or the new Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 under s. 57.
  3. 3 Scope and effect of s. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and its savings related to pending proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

It is competent for the High Court under s. 35 of the 1952 Act to interfere with findings of acquiescence on the ground of absence of evidence; the present case falls under the exception provided by the 1952 Act, and the majority holds that s. 57 of the 1958 Act does not override the substantive rights/obligations created by the 1952 Act in pending proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.