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>Tenants lose pre-emption rights post-eviction, Supreme Court affirms.</h1> <h3>Rikhi Ram and Ors. Versus Ram Kumar and Ors.</h3> Rikhi Ram and Ors. Versus Ram Kumar and Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 15(1)(a) Fourthly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.2. Effect of an order of eviction on the right of pre-emption.3. Admissibility of an order of eviction as additional evidence in court proceedings.Analysis:1. The appeal involved a suit for pre-emption under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, concerning the sale of agricultural land in Haryana. The appellants, who were tenants of the land, claimed pre-emption rights under Section 15(1)(a) Fourthly of the Act. The trial court initially decreed pre-emption for a portion of the land, but the High Court later dismissed the suit based on a previous eviction order against the tenants. The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the law, citing a previous Supreme Court decision in Bhagwan Das's case as a point of contention.2. The crucial issue revolved around the impact of an order of eviction on the right of pre-emption. The High Court held that since the tenants had been evicted before the decree for pre-emption was passed, they no longer qualified for pre-emption rights. The appellant's counsel contended that the general principle of pre-emption should not apply in cases where the landlord's actions could defeat the tenant's right to pre-empt. However, the court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the tenants had lost their status as tenants after the eviction order, thereby disqualifying them from pre-emption.3. Another point of contention was the admissibility of the eviction order as additional evidence in court proceedings. The appellants argued that the High Court erred in not admitting the eviction order as evidence, but the court found that the existence of the eviction order was not disputed during the proceedings. The court also examined the specifics of the eviction order, which directed the tenants to be ejected from the entire land, leading to the conclusion that the appellants no longer held any portion of the land at the time of the pre-emption decree, rendering the decree unsustainable.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the tenants were not entitled to pre-emption rights due to the eviction order. The court also found that the eviction order was not necessary to be admitted as additional evidence, as its existence was acknowledged during the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
