Skip to content


S.D. Bakshi Vs. P.L. Morada - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1976)1SCC816; 1975(7)LC513(SC)
ActsHimachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 - Sections 14 and 28(2); Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1975
AppellantS.D. Bakshi
RespondentP.L. Morada
Excerpt:
- kerala value added tax act (2003) section 6(1)(d): [s.b. sinha, dr. mukundakam sharma & r.m. lodha,jj] writ petition alternative remedy - notification no. 82/2006, dated 21.1.2006, item no. 66 - petitioner, manufacturer of mosquito repellents was assessed at enhanced rate under notification writ petition challenging assessment - specific prayer for declaration that notification dated 21.1.2006 was ultra vires not made - but, specific ground in that behalf had been taken held, alternative remedy was, as such, ineffective. dismissal of writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy is improper. .....fallen vacant and as such he no longer stood need of any further accommodation so as to eject the tenant. the high court disposed of this question on the assumption that the appellant had to take new proceedings under the provisions of section 14 of the himachal pradesh urban rent control act, 1971. that assumption is no longer valid. the high court will, therefore, now have to consider and dispose of the point raised before it, with regard to the appellant landlord having assumed possession over a considerable portion of the accommodation which had since fallen vacant, and as such being no longer in need of any further accommodation so as to eject tenant respondent here. the high court will also have to consider the question whether the tenant is entitled to raise the question at the.....
Judgment:

A. Alagiriswami, J.

1. In view of the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1975, by which a proviso was added to Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 providing that 'all orders of ejectment passed whether before or after the commencement of this Act under the provisions of the Acts hereby repealed, shall be executed in accordance with the provisions of the Act', this appeal will have to be allowed. The result would be that the appellant will be entitled to execute the order of eviction obtained by him. However, it appears that before the High Court, for the first time, a point was raised that the present appellant landlord has assumed possession over a considerable portion of the accommodation which has since fallen vacant and as such he no longer stood need of any further accommodation so as to eject the tenant. The High Court disposed of this question on the assumption that the appellant had to take new proceedings under the provisions of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971. That assumption is no longer valid. The High Court will, therefore, now have to consider and dispose of the point raised before it, with regard to the appellant landlord having assumed possession over a considerable portion of the accommodation which had since fallen vacant, and as such being no longer in need of any further accommodation so as to eject tenant respondent here. The High Court will also have to consider the question whether the tenant is entitled to raise the question at the stage at which he did so. There will be an order in the above term. No costs.


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