MADAN MOHAN SINGH versus VED PRAKASH ARYA

MADAN MOHAN SINGH versus VED PRAKASH ARYA

The respondent failed to prove tenancy (no rent receipts/accounts and reliance on surmise); the partnership deed executed by the parties and the Chief Administrator's binding finding under Clause 12 that the respondent was a servant established that the premises were not sublet; therefore the respondent was not a tenant and the appellant was entitled to possession and mandatory relief.

Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Madan Mohan Singh; Respondent / Defendant: Ved Prakash Arya
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (civil Appeal Nos. 814 815 of 2021) / On Appeal From High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (rsa No.35 of 1997 and RSA No.2610 of 2002)
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Tenancy, Subletting, Allotment Conditions (clause 12), Possession, Mandatory Injunction, Mesne Profits, Resumption of Allotment
Eviction Landlord and Tenant Partnership Public Premises (eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 Administrative Decisions on Allotments Tenancy Subletting Allotment Conditions (clause 12) +4 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madan Mohan Singh

Appellant / Plaintiff

Ved Prakash Arya

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (civil Appeal Nos. 814 815 of 2021) / On Appeal From High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (rsa No.35 of 1997 and RSA No.2610 of 2002)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was a tenant of Booth No.186
  2. 2 Whether the partnership deed dated 18.12.1976 was a sham and whether the defendant was an employee
  3. 3 Whether the Chief Administrator's finding that the respondent was a servant was binding under Clause 12 of the Allotment Letter

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to prove tenancy (no rent receipts/accounts and reliance on surmise); the partnership deed executed by the parties and the Chief Administrator's binding finding under Clause 12 that the respondent was a servant established that the premises were not sublet; therefore the respondent was not a tenant and the appellant was entitled to possession and mandatory relief.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Restore judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 02.12.1996
  • Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration to ensure appellant is immediately put in possession of Booth No.186, Sector 35-D