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 Remands Landlord Dispute for Further Examination</h1> <h3>Rishab Chand Bhandari Lrs. & Anr. Versus National Engineering Industry Ltd.</h3> Rishab Chand Bhandari Lrs. & Anr. Versus National Engineering Industry Ltd. - 2009 (14) SCR 662, 2009 (10) SCC 601, 2009 (12) JT 444, 2009 (13) SCALE 6 Issues involved: Interpretation of the term 'landlord' u/s 3(iii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950.The judgment involves an appeal against a decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, where the Trial Court's order was restored, setting aside the Single Judge's order. The suit was regarding eviction and arrears of rent, with the respondent claiming to be authorized by the Trust to act as the landlord. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the term 'landlord' as per the Act.The definition of 'landlord' u/s 3(iii) of the Act was crucial in this case, which includes a person entitled to receive rent, whether on their own account or as an agent. The appellant argued that there was no default in rent payment as it was being paid to an individual collecting on behalf of the Trust. On the other hand, the respondent contended that as the landlord, rent should have been paid to them directly, alleging default in payment.The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation of the term 'landlord' under the Act. While the natural landlord is typically the owner, the definition allows for agents or authorized persons to collect rent. A literal interpretation leading to absurd consequences was to be avoided, as seen in previous legal precedents.The Court found that the respondent had not provided evidence of written authorization from the Trust to act on its behalf. Without such proof, the respondent, not being the owner, could not unilaterally file for eviction. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for further examination, allowing the respondent to present documented authorization from the Trust and implead the Trust as a proforma-defendant.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision, with all contentions left open for both parties to argue. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 