Daulat Ram (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. Vs. Roop Rani
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.5504/85.
Petitioner: Daulat Ram (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr.
Respondent: Roop Rani
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.5504/85.
Judges: A.P. SEN & V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 12, 1987
Appearances:
Mr. C.M. Nayar, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. T.U. Mehta, Senior Advocate and Mr.Arun Madan, Advocate for the
Respondents.
Head Note:
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 :
Sections 2(f) and 13(2)(ii)(a) – Land required for personal use and occupation – Decision of High Court up
Held:
Appellant to vacate the premises – Appellant to be given first option in the event the respondent intends to sell or rent out land within a period of five years.
Held –
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The subject matter in dispute in this appeal is rented land within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and the only question is whether the respondent Smt. Roop Rani has made out a case of her personal requirement under Section 13(2) (ii) (a) of the Act. No doubt, the onus was on the landlord but all the Courts have found on consideration of the evidence that onus has been discharged. The High Court has upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate Authority that she required the land in dispute, for her personal use and occupation. That being the finding of fact, there is no reason for us to take a different view.
2. The result therefore, is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. However, we grant six months’ time to the appellants to vacate the premises on furnishing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. We also make it clear that in the event the respondent intends to sell or let out the rented land within a period of five years from today, she would give first option to the appellants.
3. There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
1. The subject matter in dispute in this appeal is rented land within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and the only question is whether the respondent Smt. Roop Rani has made out a case of her personal requirement under Section 13(2) (ii) (a) of the Act. No doubt, the onus was on the landlord but all the Courts have found on consideration of the evidence that onus has been discharged. The High Court has upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate Authority that she required the land in dispute, for her personal use and occupation. That being the finding of fact, there is no reason for us to take a different view.
2. The result therefore, is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. However, we grant six months’ time to the appellants to vacate the premises on furnishing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. We also make it clear that in the event the respondent intends to sell or let out the rented land within a period of five years from today, she would give first option to the appellants.
3. There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
