OM PRAKASH versus SURESH KUMAR

OM PRAKASH versus SURESH KUMAR

An unequivocal statement made by the appellant's counsel before the High Court to re-induct the respondent-tenant in equivalent area was binding on the appellant; the appellant must therefore re-induct the tenant, but because the newly constructed building layout precludes giving the entire original area, the Court modified the decree: the appellant must hand over the front portion of the ground floor measuring 3.73 m x 7.57 m, pay compensation of Rs.74,000 for loss of area, desist from using first and second floors until payment, and the Rent Controller shall determine monthly rent on re-induction.

Parties
Appellant / Land Lord: Om Prakash; Respondent / Tenant: Suresh Kumar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court on Appeal From High Court Orders
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed; impugned High Court judgments/decree modified
Legal Topics
Re Induction of Tenant, Binding Nature of Counsel's Statements, Bonafide Requirement for Reconstruction, Review Petition, Compensation for Loss of Area, Appointment of Receiver
Rent Control Eviction Property Law Civil Procedure Re Induction of Tenant Binding Nature of Counsel's Statements Bonafide Requirement for Reconstruction Review Petition +2 more

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

Parties

Om Prakash

Appellant / Land Lord

Suresh Kumar

Respondent / Tenant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court on Appeal From High Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant is bound by an unequivocal statement made by his counsel before the High Court to re-induct the respondent in equivalent area
  2. 2 Whether re-induction must be in the exact original area or a modified area with compensation
  3. 3 Whether the appellant could resile from the statement on the ground that the counsel acted without instructions

Ratio Decidendi

An unequivocal statement made by the appellant's counsel before the High Court to re-induct the respondent-tenant in equivalent area was binding on the appellant; the appellant must therefore re-induct the tenant, but because the newly constructed building layout precludes giving the entire original area, the Court modified the decree: the appellant must hand over the front portion of the ground floor measuring 3.73 m x 7.57 m, pay compensation of Rs.74,000 for loss of area, desist from using first and second floors until payment, and the Rent Controller shall determine monthly rent on re-induction.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed; impugned High Court judgments/decree modified

Orders

  • Appellant to construct a brick wall separating ground floor within six weeks and hand over front portion measuring 3.73 meters x 7.57 meters to respondent for non-residential use on monthly rent basis
  • Appellant to pay Rs.74,000 towards compensation/damages and until such payment is made, appellant shall desist from using the first and second floor premises for any purpose