Smt. Draupadi and Others Vs. Gorakhnath Gupta and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 1988.
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 3757 of 1988)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 3757 of 1988)
Petitioner: Smt. Draupadi and Others
Respondent: Gorakhnath Gupta and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 1988.
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 3757 of 1988)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 3757 of 1988)
Judges: R.S.PATHAK,CJI., S. NATARAJAN & M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 30, 1988
Head Note:
RENT LAW
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977:
Section 8(2) – Eviction for non payment of rent – Excess amount lying with the landlord in respect of rent paid originally by the tenants at the higher rate to cover the amount of rent due – Judgments and orders of the courts below set aside – The Court did not consider the operation of the provisions of Sub- section (2) of Section 8 of the Act in the case.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted.
2. The amount lying in excess with the landlord was admittedly part of the rent paid originally by the tenants at the higher rate. The tenants did not pay the rent due for February and March, 1966. There is no dispute that the amount lying in excess would cover the amount due by way of rent for those two months. It is also not in dispute that the tenants have been depositing the rent regularly ever since.
3. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgments and orders of the High Court and of the courts below and dismiss the suit for eviction. We may observe that we do not think it necessary in this particular case to consider the operation of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The amount lying in excess with the landlord was admittedly part of the rent paid originally by the tenants at the higher rate. The tenants did not pay the rent due for February and March, 1966. There is no dispute that the amount lying in excess would cover the amount due by way of rent for those two months. It is also not in dispute that the tenants have been depositing the rent regularly ever since.
3. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgments and orders of the High Court and of the courts below and dismiss the suit for eviction. We may observe that we do not think it necessary in this particular case to consider the operation of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
