S. SANYAL versus GIAN CHAND

S. SANYAL versus GIAN CHAND

The High Court erred in directing partial eviction. Where premises are let for composite purposes, s.13(1)(e) does not confer jurisdiction on the court for partial eviction from the residential portion; tenancy is indivisible unless statute provides otherwise.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Miss Sanyal; Respondent: Gian Chand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 September 1967
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Order of Punjab High Court, Civil Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Composite Tenancy, Jurisdiction Under Rent Control Acts
Property Law Landlord Tenant Eviction Composite Tenancy Jurisdiction Under Rent Control Acts

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Sanyal

Appellant

Gian Chand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Order of Punjab High Court, Civil Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court can decree partial eviction from residential portion when premises were let for composite (residential and non-residential) purposes under s.13(1)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in directing partial eviction. Where premises are let for composite purposes, s.13(1)(e) does not confer jurisdiction on the court for partial eviction from the residential portion; tenancy is indivisible unless statute provides otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of High Court set aside
  • Decree of Senior Subordinate Judge restored