Skip to content


Radhey Shyam Vs. Nazar Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 69 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC100; (1981)4SCC147
ActsEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 2
AppellantRadhey Shyam
RespondentNazar Singh
Excerpt:
- section 20: [markandey katju & v.s. sirpurkar, jj] filing of arbitration agreement into court - dispute between partners - respondent contending that petitioners deliberately omitted to mention fact of their retirement from business under alleged retirement deed -petitioners alleged that retirement deed was forged and fabricated document which was never executed by them - central forensic science laboratory (cfsl) opined that signatures of petitioners on alleged retirement deed were not genuine held, it cannot be prima facie said that dispute between the parties does not subsist. in the circumstances it cannot be said that dispute could not be referred to arbitrator in view of alleged retirement deed. .....his revision petition in limine.2. a petition was filed by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he needed the accommodation for his bona fide personal requirement the accommodation consists of a shop-cum-flat and was leased out @ rs. 300/- per month. the statutory authorities under the east punjab urban rent restriction act concurrently held that the accommodation was a 'residential building' by virtue of the definition in sub-section (g) of section 2 of the act. that finding was not assailed before the high court.3. before us learned counsel for the appellant wants to reopen the finding whether the accommodation in question can be described as a 'residential building' within the meaning of section 2(g) of the act. having refrained from challenging the.....
Judgment:

R.S. Pathak, J.

1. This is a tenant's appeal directed against the judgment dated Sep. 21, 1977 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing his revision petition in limine.

2. A petition was filed by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he needed the accommodation for his bona fide personal requirement The accommodation consists of a shop-cum-flat and was leased out @ Rs. 300/- per month. The statutory authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act concurrently held that the accommodation was a 'residential building' by virtue of the definition in Sub-section (g) of Section 2 of the Act. That finding was not assailed before the High Court.

3. Before us learned Counsel for the appellant wants to reopen the finding whether the accommodation in question can be described as a 'residential building' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. Having refrained from challenging the finding in the High Court we do not see why we should be permitted to do so here.

4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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