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>Landlord-tenant dispute: possession not relinquished via advertising board on roof.</h1> <h3>Gopal Saran Versus Satyanarayana</h3> Gopal Saran Versus Satyanarayana - 1989 AIR 1141 (SC), JT1989 (Suppl.) SC 21, 1989 (1) SCALE 497, (1989) 3 SCC 56, [1989] 1 SCR 767, 1989 (2) UJ1 Issues Involved:1. Parting with possession of the roof by installing an advertisement board.2. Material alteration to the premises.3. Default in payment of rent.Detailed Analysis:1. Parting with Possession of the Roof by Installing an Advertisement Board:The primary issue was whether the tenant-appellant had parted with possession of the roof by allowing an advertising board to be installed. The trial court initially found that the appellant had parted with possession by fixing the board on the roof and decreed eviction. However, the District Judge on appeal held that the appellant had not parted with possession, as the board was used for the appellant's own advertising business. The High Court, on further appeal, reversed this finding, holding that the installation of the board amounted to parting with possession under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The High Court relied on Exhibit 6 and the tenant's admission that he received rent for the board, concluding that the appellant had parted with possession of the roof to Paramount Services.2. Material Alteration to the Premises:The trial court initially held that the appellant had caused material alteration by fixing the advertisement board with iron angles. However, upon remand, the District Judge found no material alteration, noting that the board was fixed temporarily and did not cause any substantial damage to the premises. The High Court did not address this issue further, as it focused on the parting with possession ground.3. Default in Payment of Rent:The trial court initially decreed eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. However, it was later found that this was the first default, and under the Act, a decree for eviction could not be passed on this ground. The District Judge affirmed that there was no default for six months, and the High Court did not find it necessary to address this issue further due to its finding on parting with possession.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the evidence and the law. The tenant-appellant was carrying on his own advertising business and had not parted with possession of the roof. The Supreme Court emphasized that for parting with possession to be established, there must be a complete exclusion of the tenant from the legal possession of the premises. The evidence showed that the tenant was using the roof for his benefit and had not assigned, sub-let, or otherwise parted with possession. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the eviction order and allowed the appeal, concluding that no grounds for eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act were established.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
