TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies eviction rules under Himachal Rent Control Act</h1> <h3>Kailash Chand Versus Dharam Dass</h3> Kailash Chand Versus Dharam Dass - 2005 AIR 2362, 2005 (3) SCR 1182, 2005 (5) SCC 375, 2005 (5) JT 139, 2005 (4) SCALE 603 Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the third proviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987.2. Interpretation of the term 'vacate' and its implications.3. Evaluation of the landlord's bona fide requirement.4. Applicability of the first and second provisos to sub-Section (3) of Section 14.5. Examination of the High Court's reliance on the Molar Mal case.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Third Proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the Act:The Supreme Court examined whether the third proviso, which restricts landlords from seeking eviction if they have already obtained possession of another building on similar grounds, applied to the present case. The Court concluded that the third proviso did not apply because the landlords obtained possession through a compromise, not an eviction order. Additionally, the tenant merely shifted within the same building, which did not constitute 'vacating' the building.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Vacate' and Its Implications:The Court clarified that 'vacate' means to leave or go away from a building. In this case, the tenant shifted from one part of the building to another, which did not amount to vacating. Therefore, the landlords did not obtain possession in a manner that would trigger the third proviso.3. Evaluation of the Landlord's Bona Fide Requirement:The Court emphasized that the landlord's requirement must be genuine and bona fide. The landlords' family size had increased, and they needed additional space for their growing family. The Court found that the landlords' requirement was genuine and not a pretext to evict the tenant.4. Applicability of the First and Second Provisos to Sub-Section (3) of Section 14:- First Proviso: The first proviso restricts eviction if the landlord is already occupying another residential building in the same urban area. The Court held that the first proviso did not apply because the landlords' current accommodation was insufficient and unsuitable for their needs.- Second Proviso: The second proviso restricts eviction if the landlord has vacated another residential building in the same urban area within five years. The Court found no evidence that the landlords had vacated any building within five years without sufficient cause. The compromise agreement did not amount to vacating a building.5. Examination of the High Court's Reliance on the Molar Mal Case:The High Court had relied on the Molar Mal case to deny eviction. However, the Supreme Court distinguished the present case from Molar Mal, noting that Molar Mal involved obtaining possession from multiple tenants, whereas the present case involved a compromise without an eviction order. The Court also criticized the rigid interpretation in Molar Mal and advocated for a practical and reasonable approach.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Rent Controller's eviction order. The Court granted the tenant time until 31.8.2005 to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking before the Rent Controller. The costs incurred by the landlords were to be borne by the tenant.
TaxTMI 