Khubi Ram Vs. Lalit Mohan

Khubi Ram vs Lalit Mohan

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jul 27, 2017

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1193459

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1193459
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Decided On: Jul 27, 2017
Case Number: 25803 / 2009
Subject: Tenancy
Source Link: http://sci.gov.in//supremecourt/2009/25803/25803_2009_Judgement_27-Jul-2017.pdf

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Tenancy

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Khubi Ram

Advocate Surya Kant

Respondent

Lalit Mohan

Advocate Dinesh Kumar Garg

Excerpt

.....of judicature at allahabad in civil misc. writ petition no.46048/2000 whereby the order delivered by the first appellate authority in the eviction matter has been confirmed. the dispute only pertains to the arrears of 2. rent. the rent controller has taken a view that the non-deposit of a portion of the arrears claimed is on account of mistake of fact. however, that contention has not been accepted by the high court. we are informed that the appellant and his wife are both handicapped and that they have a small tailoring shop and that they have unmarried 2 daughters. the respondent is a doctor who has retired 3. from government service and the wife of the respondent is also a doctor who is retiring shortly. the respondent, who is present before this court today submits that their children are married and settled in life, however, they require the premises for setting up a clinic. it is submitted that one tenant has already vacated the premises and settlement talks are going on with another tenant for vacating the premises.4. be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the appellant is engaged in a small tailoring shop and that he has unmarried daughters as well, and since one more tenant of the premises is yet to be evicted, we find it is only just and fair that reasonable time to settle elsewhere is granted, particularly, taking note of the fact that the entire family is residing within that premises only. accordingly, the appeal is dismissed but 5. granting time to the appellant to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the respondent on or before 1st may, 2019.6. we make it clear that there shall be no 3 further extension of time on any ground. the appellant shall also file an undertaking 7. on usual terms before this court within four weeks. ....................j.[kurian joseph]. ....................j.[r. banumathi]. july27 2017; new delhi.

Full Judgment

1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1923 OF 2010 KHUBI RAM LALIT MOHAN VERSUS

JUDGMENT

APPELLANT RESPONDENT KURIAN, J.

1. The appellant, who is the tenant, is before this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46048/2000 whereby the order delivered by the first appellate authority in the eviction matter has been confirmed. The dispute only pertains to the arrears of 2. rent. The Rent Controller has taken a view that the non-deposit of a portion of the arrears claimed is on account of mistake of fact. However, that contention has not been accepted by the High Court. We are informed that the appellant and his wife are both handicapped and that they have a small tailoring shop and that they have unmarried 2 daughters. The respondent is a Doctor who has retired 3. from Government service and the wife of the respondent is also a Doctor who is retiring shortly. The respondent, who is present before this Court today submits that their children are married and settled in life, however, they require the premises for setting up a clinic. It is submitted that one tenant has already vacated the premises and settlement talks are going on with another tenant for vacating the premises.

4. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the appellant is engaged in a small tailoring shop and that he has unmarried daughters as well, and since one more tenant of the premises is yet to be evicted, we find it is only just and fair that reasonable time to settle elsewhere is granted, particularly, taking note of the fact that the entire family is residing within that premises only. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed but 5. granting time to the appellant to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the respondent on or before 1st May, 2019.

6. We make it clear that there shall be no 3 further extension of time on any ground. The appellant shall also file an undertaking 7. on usual terms before this Court within four weeks. ....................J.

[KURIAN JOSEPH]. ....................J.

[R. BANUMATHI]. JULY27 2017; NEW DELHI.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 2017 Same Parties Khubi Ram vs Lalit Mohan Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice R. Ba...