SANT RAM versus RAJINDER LAL AND ORS.

Section 13(2)(ii)(b) was not attracted as incidental residential use did not amount to a diversion of purpose given the social milieu and absence of exclusivity in lease purpose.

Parties: Appellant: Sant Ram; Respondents: Rajinder Lal and Ors.
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 22 September 1978
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Eviction, Statutory Interpretation, Purpose of Lease, Tenant Protection

Property Law Landlord Tenant Law Eviction Statutory Interpretation Purpose of Lease Tenant Protection

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Sant Ram

Appellant

Rajinder Lal and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

1 Whether Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applied to Himachal Pradesh, is attracted when a tenant uses leased shop premises for cooking food and staying at night in addition to commercial use.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 13(2)(ii)(b) was not attracted as incidental residential use did not amount to a diversion of purpose given the social milieu and absence of exclusivity in lease purpose.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Tenant shall not be ejected.
If already ejected, tenant shall be restituted into possession by the trial court under section 144 C.P.C. within one month, despite induction of another tenant by landlord.