MANSARAM versus S. P. PATHAK AND OTHERS

MANSARAM versus S. P. PATHAK AND OTHERS

Absence of allotment order and non-examination of appellant's assurance vitiated the eviction order; appellant's occupation, based on landlord's assurance, was not shown to be in contravention of the Order; power of eviction must be exercised reasonably and within a reasonable time. Orders of the House Allotment Officer and High Court are set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Mansaram; Respondent: S. P. Pathak; Respondent: Usha Rani N. Sharma
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 September 1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court (nagpur Bench) Judgment Dated 4th July, 1978
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of House Allotment Officer and High Court quashed; application by respondent dismissed.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Occupation of Government Allotted Premises, Quasi Judicial Decision Making, Statutory Compliance, Reasonable Exercise of Power
Landlord Tenant Rent Control Eviction Occupation of Government Allotted Premises Quasi Judicial Decision Making Statutory Compliance Reasonable Exercise of Power

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mansaram

Appellant

S. P. Pathak

Respondent

Usha Rani N. Sharma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court (nagpur Bench) Judgment Dated 4th July, 1978

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether occupation of the premises by appellant Mansaram was in contravention of clause 22(2) of Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949
  2. 2 Whether liability to vacate premises under clause 25 arises absent an allotment order under clause 23
  3. 3 Whether delay or inaction vitiates the eviction order

Ratio Decidendi

Absence of allotment order and non-examination of appellant's assurance vitiated the eviction order; appellant's occupation, based on landlord's assurance, was not shown to be in contravention of the Order; power of eviction must be exercised reasonably and within a reasonable time. Orders of the House Allotment Officer and High Court are set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of House Allotment Officer and High Court quashed; application by respondent dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Order of House Allotment Officer quashed.