Skip to content


Sagir Ahmad Vs. Iv Additional District Judge, Agra and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1521 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC790; (1982)3SCC215
ActsUttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 21(1)
AppellantSagir Ahmad
Respondentiv Additional District Judge, Agra and ors.
Excerpt:
.....was one of outright sales. on appeal, the tribunal held that the payment,constituted only fee or rent for the use of the goodwill so long as it was used and accordingly they were in the nature of revenue expenditure. on reference the high court answered in favour of the revenue. allowing the appeal, belt) : (sikri c.j. dissenting) on the facts of the case the transaction was a licence and not, a sale of the goodwill: the disbursements in question, therefore, were in the nature of royalty and must be treated as admissible deduction. [232 b] (i) there is no single test of universal application for deciding the question whether in agreement is for payment of price in stipulated instalments or for making annual payment in the nature of income and. therefore, the court has to look not only..........it is not necessary for us, however, to send the case back to the high court for this purpose as learned counsel for the parties are agreed before us that in accordance with the proviso the appellant should be entitled to compensation in an amount equivalent to two years' rent. the judgment of the high court is modified accordingly. further, learned counsel for the parties are agreed, and we order, that the appellant shall not be evicted from the premises for a period of six months from today provided the appellant furnishes an undertaking to the registrar of this court within two weeks from today that he will hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent-landlord on the expiry of the said period and will not induct any other person or otherwise part with possession of the.....
Judgment:

R.S. Pathak, J.

1. Special leave granted

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The judgment dated Oct. 1, 1980 made by the High Court does not consider the proviso to Section 21(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The consideration of the proviso was mandatory because the High Court was making an order for ejectment of the tenant on an application made by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. It is not necessary for us, however, to send the case back to the High Court for this purpose as learned Counsel for the parties are agreed before us that in accordance with the proviso the appellant should be entitled to compensation in an amount equivalent to two years' rent. The judgment of the High Court is modified accordingly. Further, learned Counsel for the parties are agreed, and we order, that the appellant shall not be evicted from the premises for a period of six months from today provided the appellant furnishes an undertaking to the Registrar of this Court within two weeks from today that he will hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent-landlord on the expiry of the said period and will not induct any other person or otherwise part with possession of the premises. If the undertaking is not furnished within two weeks from today or any of the above conditions is violated, this order granting time to vacate the premises shall stand vacated.

3. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //