YUDHISHTER versus ASHOK KUMAR

YUDHISHTER versus ASHOK KUMAR

The landlord's bona fide requirement for the premises is established under section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The appellate authority had jurisdiction to admit and consider additional evidence. The previous sale of another property did not disentitle the landlord, absent proof of intent to defeat the Act. The High Court and Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the appellate authority's finding.

Parties
Appellant: Yudhishter; Respondent: Ashok Kumar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 December 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Summary Dismissal of Revision by High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bonafide Requirement, Appellate Procedure, Admission of Additional Evidence, Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation
Landlord Tenant Property Law Statutory Interpretation Eviction Bonafide Requirement Appellate Procedure Admission of Additional Evidence Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yudhishter

Appellant

Ashok Kumar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Summary Dismissal of Revision by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord satisfied the requirements of section 13(3)(a)(i) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for bona fide personal requirement
  2. 2 Whether the appellate authority was justified in admitting and relying on additional evidence
  3. 3 Whether the landlord's sale of another residential property disentitled him under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord's bona fide requirement for the premises is established under section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The appellate authority had jurisdiction to admit and consider additional evidence. The previous sale of another property did not disentitle the landlord, absent proof of intent to defeat the Act. The High Court and Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the appellate authority's finding.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Interim orders vacated
  • Parties to pay and bear their own costs