MANI SUBRAT JAIN versus RAJA RAM VOHRA

MANI SUBRAT JAIN versus RAJA RAM VOHRA

A person continuing in possession after termination of tenancy is a tenant for purposes of the Act, and is protected from eviction in execution of decree unless grounds under section 13 are made out. The compromise decree did not remove statutory protection.

Parties
Appellant: Mani Subrat Jain; Respondent: Raja Ram Vohra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 November 1979
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgment Dated 10 4 1978 in Civil Revision No. 458 of 1978
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by consent; parties have entered settlement and agreement to sell property appended as undertaking to Court.
Legal Topics
Definition of Tenant, Eviction Proceedings, Compromise Decree, Statutory Interpretation
Tenancy Urban Rent Control Definition of Tenant Eviction Proceedings Compromise Decree 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mani Subrat Jain

Appellant

Raja Ram Vohra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgment Dated 10 4 1978 in Civil Revision No. 458 of 1978

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an advocate tenant continuing in possession after termination of tenancy by compromise decree remains a 'tenant' under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
  2. 2 Whether such tenant is protected from eviction in execution of decree after the Act's extension to Chandigarh

Ratio Decidendi

A person continuing in possession after termination of tenancy is a tenant for purposes of the Act, and is protected from eviction in execution of decree unless grounds under section 13 are made out. The compromise decree did not remove statutory protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed by consent; parties have entered settlement and agreement to sell property appended as undertaking to Court.

Orders

  • Agreement to sell property treated as mutual undertaking to Court.
  • No relief needed in appeal due to settlement; appeal formally dismissed.