Satpal Vs. Hiralal - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Number||Civil Appeal No. 1398 of 1978|
|Judge|| A.V. Varadarajan,; Syed M. Fazal Ali and; v. Balakrishana Eradi, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1981SC1738; (1981)3SCC127|
.....unless expressly so provided - no merit in this appeal - tenant directed to vacate premises and hand over possession to landlord. - constitution of india article 226; [s.b.sinha &j.m. panchal, jj] writ jurisdiction - held, contractual disputes involving public law element are amenable to writ jurisdiction.
article 226 : writ court power of review held, while exercising the writ jurisdiction, the writ court not only acts as a court of law but also as a court of equity. a clear error or omission on the part of court to consider a justifiable claim as to payment of interest on principal sum would be thus subject to review; amongst others on principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the courts shall prejudice none). -- article 14: scope article 14 has received..........carry out all necessary repairs at his own costs without being reimbursed by the.....
S. Murtuza Fazal Ali, J.
1. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the courts below. We find no merit in this appeal. Special leave appears to have been granted only on the question of notice which no longer survives in view of a 7-Judge Bench decision of this Court holding that in cases governed by the Rent Act, no notice Under Section 106 T.P. Act is necessary unless expressly so provided. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.
2. Time till 30th September, 1981 is allowed to vacate the premises and to hand over vacant possession to the respondent-landlord, subject to filing the usual undertaking within six weeks from today. In the meantime, the appellant shall pay compensation equivalent to rent regularly and will also carry out all necessary repairs at his own costs without being reimbursed by the respondent.