Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC976; JT1988(1)SC619; 1988(1)SCALE556; (1988)2SCC165; [1988]3SCR88; 1988(1)LC613(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Special leave granted in both the matters and the appeals are disposed of hereunder.2. The facts in both these cases are identical. These appeals are directed against the judgment and orders of the High Court of Delhi, dated the 8th October, 1985 setting aside the order of eviction affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. In order to appreciate the controversy it may be mentioned here briefly that the appellant is the owner of a flat in Dohil Chambers, 46 Nehru Place, New Delhi. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant had duly appointed Shri Hardev Dohil as the general attorney for and on his behalf to do all the acts and deeds including renting out the premises in question. Shri H. Dohil entered into an agreement of lease with respondent No. 1 Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd., to take the premises situated at Nehru Place. Clause 21 of the said agreement amongst others specifically provided that the respondent herein would not be in arrears of rent and th...
Tag this Judgment!