SURINDER SINGH SIBIA versus VIJA Y KUMAR SOOD

SURINDER SINGH SIBIA versus VIJA Y KUMAR SOOD

Vacation of premises by a landlord in compliance with a requisition order from a competent authority is not 'without sufficient cause' under the second proviso to Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The restriction of the proviso does not apply to such statutorily compelled acts, regardless of whether the landlord filed objections in the requisition proceedings. Thus, the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant.

Parties
Appellant: Surinder Singh Sibia; Respondent: Vijay Kumar Sood
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 October 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Himachal Pradesh High Court Decision in Civil Revision No. 29 of 1988
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of the courts below set aside.
Legal Topics
Eviction of Tenant, Requisition of Property, Interpretation of 'sufficient Cause' in Rent Control Context
Rent Control Property Law Eviction of Tenant Requisition of Property Interpretation of 'sufficient Cause' in Rent Control Context

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surinder Singh Sibia

Appellant

Vijay Kumar Sood

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Himachal Pradesh High Court Decision in Civil Revision No. 29 of 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether possession given to competent authority under a requisition order is 'vacation without sufficient cause' under the second proviso to Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987
  2. 2 Whether the validity or invalidity of the requisition order under the Himachal Pradesh Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1972, affects the sufficiency of cause under the Rent Control Act
  3. 3 Whether non-filing of objection by landlord in requisition proceedings renders the vacation without sufficient cause

Ratio Decidendi

Vacation of premises by a landlord in compliance with a requisition order from a competent authority is not 'without sufficient cause' under the second proviso to Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The restriction of the proviso does not apply to such statutorily compelled acts, regardless of whether the landlord filed objections in the requisition proceedings. Thus, the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of the courts below set aside.

Orders

  • Application of landlord for eviction allowed.
  • Appellant to approach Rent Control authorities for appropriate directions.