Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 13 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
M/S. Variety Emporium vs V. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina on 27 November, 1984
It is settled law that subsequent events can be taken
note of and the relief would be moulded suitably, vide
Hasmat Rai and Anr. v. Raghunath Prasad, [1981] 3 SCR 605
and M/s Variety Emporim v. V.R.M. Mohld.
Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh vs Badri Prasad Seth on 20 March, 1962
In Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh v. Badri Prasad Seth,
[1962] Supp.3 SCR 952 the respondent was running a cinema
theatre known as Rivoli. The Municipal Commissioner Shimla
noted some defects and directed the appellant to remove the
defects in the theatre. The appellant sought for eviction
of the respondent tenant on the ground that the building
became unsafe and unfit for habitation. The Rent Controller
directed eviction. The District Judge, on appeal, came to
the conclusion that the appellant manipulated the notice to
have the tenant evicted. The repairs could be effected
without ejecting the tenant. On revision, the High Court
confirmed it. This court on further appeal held that
s.13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act attracted only when the building
work is such that the landlord requires that the building be
vacated by the tenant in order to carry out the work. In
other words, the repairs needed are so extensive and funda-
mental in character
732
that they cannot be carried out if the tenant remains in
possession. Then only it can be said that the landlord
requires the building to carry out the building work. On
the facts in that case it was held that repairs to be ef-
fected did no t requires eviction of the tenant.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Piara Lal vs Kewal Krishan Chopra on 6 May, 1988
It is true as contended by Shri Harbans Lal that in
that case there were five rooms and the roof of one room
alone had fallen and that the tenant had obtained orders of
the Rent Controller under s.12, and thereafter the tenant
replaced the roof. It is sought to be contended that by
unilateral act of the tenant effecting repairs, the right of
the landlord for eviction under s.13(3)(a)(iii) was frus-
trated and it could not be permitted to be done. Normally it
would be so. A tenant is under a statutory obligation to
approach the Controller and seek an order for effecting
repairs provided the landlord refuses or neglects to effect
repairs. After the Rent Controller passes an order, the
tenant acquires right to effect repairs. In that event he is
entitled to recover costs thereof from the rent payable.
Under s.108(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, even in the
733
absence of a contract tenant has a unilateral right to
effect repairs, when the landlord neglects to effect repairs
within a reasonable time after notice the tenant has a right
to effect repairs and deduct the expenses with interest from
the rent or otherwise recover it from the landlord. Under
the Act this right is hedged with an obligation to get an
order from the Rent Controller.
Hasmat Rai & Anr vs Raghunath Prasad on 28 April, 1981
It is settled law that subsequent events can be taken
note of and the relief would be moulded suitably, vide
Hasmat Rai and Anr. v. Raghunath Prasad, [1981] 3 SCR 605
and M/s Variety Emporim v. V.R.M. Mohld.
1