PREM CHAND versus DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN & ANR.

PREM CHAND versus DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN & ANR.

A tailoring shop in a room otherwise used for residence does not alter the essential character of the building as residential. If the landlord is in occupation of part of the building for residential purposes and the other part is in the tenant's occupation, the presumption under Explanation (iv) of s. 21(1) applies. No further proof of requirement is needed.

Parties
Appellant: Prem Chand; Respondent No. 1: District Judge, Dehradun; Respondent No. 2: Respondent No. 2 (Landlady)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 November 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) / Supreme Court Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Personal Requirement, Presumption Under Statute
Landlord Tenant Law Eviction Personal Requirement Presumption Under Statute

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prem Chand

Appellant

District Judge, Dehradun

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 2 (Landlady)

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) / Supreme Court Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a shop run in a residential building converts it into a non-residential building for the purposes of s. 21(1) Explanation (iv) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Ratio Decidendi

A tailoring shop in a room otherwise used for residence does not alter the essential character of the building as residential. If the landlord is in occupation of part of the building for residential purposes and the other part is in the tenant's occupation, the presumption under Explanation (iv) of s. 21(1) applies. No further proof of requirement is needed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • No order as to costs.
  • Appellant may continue in possession of suit premises till 30th April 1977.