RUBBER HOUSE Vs. EXCELSIOR NEEDLE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1989-3-53
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
March 10,1989
RUBBER HOUSE
Appellant
VERSUS
EXCELSIOR NEEDLE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
HARI VISHNU KAMATH VS. AHMAD ISHAQUE [RELIED ON]K KAMARAJA NADAR MARIAPPAN M R MASANI VS. KUNJU THEIVAR:V R NEDUNCHEZHIYAN:THE ELEPTION TRIBUNAL RANCHI [RELIED ON]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BABU RAM UPADHYA [RELIED ON]
BHIKRAJ JAIPURIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [RELIED ON]
SUBBARAO VS. MEMBER ELECTION TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD [RELIED ON]
RAZA BULAND SUGAR CO LIMITED RAMPUR VS. MUNICINAL BOARD RAMPUR [RELIED ON]
DALCHAND VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BHOPAL [RELIED ON]
AJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
V CHAKRAPANI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2010-2-75] [REFERRED TO]K DHANANJOY SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWARA JUTE MILLS LIMITED VS. SUSHIL KUMAR DAGA [LAWS(CAL)-2009-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. ANIL KUMAR YADAV [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ANTONY MENDEZ [LAWS(KER)-1991-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
SYNERGY FERTICHEM PVT.LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-12-96] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH ALIAS NARAYAN MURLIDHAR KABRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1997-11-135] [REFERRED TO]
MOLAR MAL DEAD VS. KAY IRON WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2000-3-12] [REFERRED]
CHAMAN LAL VS. RAM DEV [LAWS(P&H)-2000-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. AMARTEX INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(P&H)-2013-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
B SANJIVA RAO VS. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION [LAWS(APH)-2000-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
A K G MEMORIAL CO OP P D SOC LTD VS. JOINT REGISTRAR [LAWS(KER)-1992-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
DR. BALWANT SINGH NEGI ETC. VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2004-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
MAHRUNNISHA BEGUM VS. RADHEY SHYAM [LAWS(MPH)-1991-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS VS. SANDEEP AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-4-225] [REFERRED]
P. K. NARAYANAN AND ANOTHER ETC. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-1990-8-75] [REFERRED TO]
SAT PAUL JINDAL VS. SMT.SUSHMA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-12-387] [REFERRED TO]
AVA MERCHANDISING SOLUTIONS VS. TORERO CORPORATION PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2019-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
JAI CHAND VS. DAULAT RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2002-10-91] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. BALDEV RAJ [LAWS(P&H)-2004-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
CHEMICAL MAZDOOR SABHA VS. VITAL ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1995-3-66] [REFERRED TO]
NARSINGRAO GURUNATH PATIL VS. ARUN GUJARATHI SPEAKER [LAWS(BOM)-2002-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
KANISKA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLAL VS. KRISHAN LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KANTI DAS VS. CHAITALI SARKAR AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
DHAN RAJ VS. BRIJESH KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
DR. MALINEE GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-2014-5-83] [REFERRED TO]
MALINEE GOSWAMI VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
S.K. BHOWMIK VS. S.K. ARORA [LAWS(P&H)-2007-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
SAHU STONE CRUSHING INDUSTRIES VS. DIVISIONAL LEVEL COMMITTEE [LAWS(ALL)-1993-11-43] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH VITHAL KULKARNI VS. PRADEEP MAHADEV SABNIS [LAWS(BOM)-2009-12-92] [REFERRED TO]
PURNA CHANDRA BEHERA VS. DIBAKAR BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHALAL MUNDA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST; AR RAMASWAMY AND ORS VS. RM PALANIAPPAN; V CHANDRAMOULEESWARAN; S HARIHARAN; V PALANIAPPAN AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-347] [REFERRED]
SATYAJIT BASU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER PAL VS. VIDYAWANTI [LAWS(P&H)-1998-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
ARTI KUMARI SINGH VS. PATNA HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(PAT)-2019-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
POORAN SINGH VS. DISTT. MAGISTRATE/RETURNING OFFICER [LAWS(UTN)-2003-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHBIR VS. MANGAT RAI KAWATRA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. PREM LATA [LAWS(SC)-2003-8-40] [REFERRED . (PARA 2) 3.]
MAY GEORGE VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
KESARI DEVI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-8-185] [REFERRED TO]
R C CHAUDHARY VS. VICE CHANCELLOR DR BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY AGRA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-262] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL SINGH VS. MOHD. BASHIR [LAWS(P&H)-2004-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
S. NIHAL SINGH MOTORS VS. SHAMA MALHOTRA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
MALINEE GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-6-81] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA AGRAWALA VS. SANTOSH KUMAR MOHANTY [LAWS(ORI)-1997-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SATTAR KULLI, MAJOR R/O MUZAWAR WADA VS. AISHAM BI MAMLEKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2018-2-213] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ BAHADUR VS. BABU LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
GEETABEN BHARATBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2005-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
JC-3101022 H NB (SUB) BANBARI LAL VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATH POST GRADUATE COLLEGE VS. INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-898] [REFERRED TO]
BABITA PATHAK VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-146] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHARLAL ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
SAIDEVAN THAMPI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2013-10-90] [REFERRED TO]
BHAJAN LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2018-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
MUKUL CHANDRA SARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2013-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS [LAWS(BOM)-1993-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL DHAKA VIKAS SOCIRTY VS. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPARSTHA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2000-12-40] [RELIED]
ANUP KUMAR DAS VS. PASCHIM BANGA GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
K SUBBIAH PANDIAN VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-745] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is against the judgment and order dated 29-5-80 in Civil Revision No. 216 of 1980 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
(2.)The respondent herein being the owner of the tenanted premises (i.e. two sheds) filed a petition for ejectment before the Rent Controller against the tenant, the appellant herein on the ground that the tenant had not paid the rent from 1-5-74. The monthly rent for the premises was originally Rs. 950/-. According to the landlord under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the rent of the demised premises was liable to be increased from Rs. 950/- to Rs. 1142/- per mensem. The landlord gave notice to the tenant to pay the rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 1142/- per mensem with effect from 26th June 1974 but the tenant defaulted in making the payment of rent and as such he was liable to be ejected from the premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The tenant resisted the application stating that the landlord was not entitled to claim enhanced rent at the rate mentioned in the ejectment application under the provisions of the Act and no legal notice was served on him claiming the arrears of rent and he had already paid the rent up to March 1975 by means of cheques and he had tendered the arrears of rent together with interest and cost as assessed by the Rent Controller on 5th December 1977 and hence the sole ground of his ejectment from the demised premises was no longer available to the landlord. In the replication the landlord denied that the tenant had paid the rent to him for the period from May 1974 to 30th November 1977@ Rs. 1147/- per mensem. In the alternative, he claimed that the rent to the extent of Rs. 36,100/- was due to him from the tenant @Rs. 950/- per mensem for the period 1st May 1974 to 30th June, 1977 and that the tenant having defaulted in making the payment was liable to be ejected. It may be stated that the application for eviction was filed on 7-6-77.
(3.)The Rent Controller held that the landlord was not entitled to recover the rent @Rs. 1142/- p.m. but only @Rs. 950/- p.m. as agreed between the parties and he had failed to pay the rent from 1-4-75. On the basis of the above finding the Rent Controller directed the ejectment of the tenant from the premises by granting two months' time.
(2.)The respondent herein being the owner of the tenanted premises (i.e. two sheds) filed a petition for ejectment before the Rent Controller against the tenant, the appellant herein on the ground that the tenant had not paid the rent from 1-5-74. The monthly rent for the premises was originally Rs. 950/-. According to the landlord under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the rent of the demised premises was liable to be increased from Rs. 950/- to Rs. 1142/- per mensem. The landlord gave notice to the tenant to pay the rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 1142/- per mensem with effect from 26th June 1974 but the tenant defaulted in making the payment of rent and as such he was liable to be ejected from the premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The tenant resisted the application stating that the landlord was not entitled to claim enhanced rent at the rate mentioned in the ejectment application under the provisions of the Act and no legal notice was served on him claiming the arrears of rent and he had already paid the rent up to March 1975 by means of cheques and he had tendered the arrears of rent together with interest and cost as assessed by the Rent Controller on 5th December 1977 and hence the sole ground of his ejectment from the demised premises was no longer available to the landlord. In the replication the landlord denied that the tenant had paid the rent to him for the period from May 1974 to 30th November 1977@ Rs. 1147/- per mensem. In the alternative, he claimed that the rent to the extent of Rs. 36,100/- was due to him from the tenant @Rs. 950/- per mensem for the period 1st May 1974 to 30th June, 1977 and that the tenant having defaulted in making the payment was liable to be ejected. It may be stated that the application for eviction was filed on 7-6-77.
(3.)The Rent Controller held that the landlord was not entitled to recover the rent @Rs. 1142/- p.m. but only @Rs. 950/- p.m. as agreed between the parties and he had failed to pay the rent from 1-4-75. On the basis of the above finding the Rent Controller directed the ejectment of the tenant from the premises by granting two months' time.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.