RASHPAL MALHOTRA versus MRS. SATYA RAJPUT AND ANOTHER

RASHPAL MALHOTRA versus MRS. SATYA RAJPUT AND ANOTHER

Supreme Court found that the appellant was not the tenant; the tenancy was with the legal entity (Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd.) behind Haryana Milk Food Corporation; suit maintainable as there was no prejudice; no grounds for Supreme Court interference under Article 136 as findings below were just and equitable; eviction order upheld.

Parties
Appellant: RASHPAL MALHOTRA; Respondent No. 1 (landlady): MRS. SATYA RAJPUT; Respondent No. 2 (lessee): HARYANA MILK FOOD CORPORATION
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 September 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Under Article 136 From the Dismissal of Revision Petition by Punjab and Haryana High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Juristic Person, Maintainability of Suit, Court's Power Under Article 136
Property Law Landlord Tenant Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Eviction Juristic Person Maintainability of Suit Court's Power Under Article 136

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RASHPAL MALHOTRA

Appellant

MRS. SATYA RAJPUT

Respondent No. 1 (landlady)

HARYANA MILK FOOD CORPORATION

Respondent No. 2 (lessee)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Under Article 136 From the Dismissal of Revision Petition by Punjab and Haryana High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether suit for eviction is maintainable against a non-juristic person named as tenant
  2. 2 Who was the actual tenant under the lease agreement
  3. 3 Applicability of Article 136—scope for Supreme Court interference

Ratio Decidendi

Supreme Court found that the appellant was not the tenant; the tenancy was with the legal entity (Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd.) behind Haryana Milk Food Corporation; suit maintainable as there was no prejudice; no grounds for Supreme Court interference under Article 136 as findings below were just and equitable; eviction order upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • If landlady lets out premises within five years, first option to appellant.
  • Landlady will not sell premises within five years; if she does, first option to appellant to purchase.