Jagdish Parshad Since Deceased Through Lrs v. Rakesh Kumar Yadav




  
  



 

 

  

 

 

 !"       !


 !
 "  % &"

'  ()" #  %* &

()"  " +++ #$%&#'()!&#*+)(,-./  )-.

,# -   ..  / 0123# #23 . "

#  2 ..123 4 ..  ##. .

 2

23.1)##..4    

.      #   2      #    

"

#  

  # .

3 .

 

  53 ) (80

(953 7"

) 9  2  .3 

#

& 

$) )  

)  #  ..3

. . 3##.34 ..   

  #. .

#



.2 .

  - :  

-1  # 

 #3

 3 

.2 .



   2 ) 



.("

 . "2 ;

##

2

(  .

# <  

01 +-)-2 .(32)&3-.12+)4$*+&21%-)2#()!$%(&#'() 5$6-) -#'-#42+() 7()1$1) !$8+'(7 -94:-.-#'-#42+()/2

4 . "

*0/=8 (  = -+-'$)!&#*+7()1$1!62 !$#&2- -#&/ 2

4 . "

*==(  />?   

. " 2 

 

    ;&#4' 5$6-)-&#7()1$101-)&#'()- !3&(#2&<&3"4)81/$)-=-)/!-'-)/6>-.--#22 /2

4 . "

*/80(  >?."

  2  " #

1 

. 5 , .## & 

$)$)53 ) (

=(  

  "

     #

         

 #

3,

2  "   /88 .3 

0?-$1 .2    1 2

#  

(-$#  1 <   # 2  . ,   .      "

          2 

3   .1.4# "& ..  #

1 :    



1 2

, 4 ..   ..1    <     #    /  23  .

     :  .

   # 

2

,##.#

23# -  2

23)##..4"

0 &  $)$)53

 7"

) (80 #.   ##.



 23. .(1

 #.3@" ;

&@"  &'4# (1 

3# 

 1 

3      53 7"

) (1 "

.(    

2$ . ; .  2   &  (   ..2.1 

  1 #  #  



  &  $)$) 53 ) 

#   

  !"  # #  !

"$%!&$%!'" "(#) '"# "  !#" ! !! !'"*
  +% ,!!, -..-# %  - /0! 0

0 
&

0 
 0  
( - ! 

 #

 #   0     12 ) 1  .

<  4

' 

##.

2 .

3 #"

53 62 ) (80

.2 .

(  2 

 ;&#4'5$6-)-&#7()1$101-)&#'()-!3&(#2&<&3"4)81/$)-=-)/ !-'-)/6>-.--#22 1$%)- ,

1 .



 .

# <  &# 4

-)>&.-1 -& -#1-.7()1$1+(!2-2(4< $#9->/?@@?

A <    

 '     

 4 

       ;('  )-8-1+  $%27()1$1!2-2(4<-):-#--#'-#42+()/?@@A

AAB . 7    <2  62     ) (  8=8  1    #   )   

##.

2.53  . 1    "

   

3" 

.#

53

4 ) (80 1..,." A  <  



;&#4'5$6-)-&#7()1$101-)&#'()- !3&(#2&<&3"4)81/$)-=-)/!-'-)/6>-.--#22 1$%)-

#    BThough it is for the legislature to confer right of eviction and also to provide for procedure for eviction in respect of buildings or class of building and confer such right on a landlord or a specific category of landlords, but the distinction between the residential and non residential building has not found favour with the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the Punjab Act. Such provisions have been extended by the Division Bench of this Court to the Haryana Act. Such view has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Prasad Jain and Ashok Kumar's case (supra) as noticed above. The distinction between the residential and non-residential building for the purpose of restricting the right of eviction on the ground of personal requirement has not been upheld.

Therefore, the argument that the summary right of eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement from a non-residential building is not available to landlord of such building, is not correct. A landlord, who satisfies the parameters of sub-section (1) and sub-section (1-A) of Section 13A of the Act, is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from a residential or non-residential building on the ground of personal requirement. Since the distinction between the residential and non- residential building for the purpose of eviction under Section 13(3)(a) (i) has not been upheld, therefore, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Devi Anand's case are not applicable.

 (emphasis supplied) xxxx Thus, it is held that a landlord is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential and non residential building in summary manner in terms of Section 13-A(1) & (1-A) of the Act.

reference in the above terms, it is held that the contrary judgments of this Court in Suresh Kumar v. Satish Kumar (CR 5520 of 2004 decided on 26.10.2009) and Lt. Col. Suraj Parkash (Retd.) v. Bhoop Singh Chaudhary, 2009(2) RCR (Rent) 470, do not lay down a correct proposition of law and are overruled to the extent they run counter to the view taken."

,

 ;&#4'5$6-) -&#7()1$101-)&#'()-!3&(#2&<&3"4)81/$)-=-)/!-'-)/6>-.- -#22 1$%)- /1 .



(.

<   &# 4

4+&#'() )-1-'-&#7()1$1-#4+-) -.-&#/ /&440=   1+485$6-)7()1$1;(' )-8-1+-#'

42+()1/&44/= ,&# 4

4+&#'() )-1-'-&#7()1$1 -#4+-) -.  -&#  #   .    #"

  A#  

  2

#$   3 C  .  #"

: "

 

1 ## ( 4 3 ( .

###   

 (

2"

#



 (#.23)##..) 3    235 4 ;2 .23&# 4

 1+48 5$6-)7()1$1;(' )-8-1+-#'42+()1  #.53 62 ) (80#"

"

   

.#

&   2. . 

  "

  

.#

  

2  

3 ,." A <  

#    B8We have carefully considered the aforesaid decisions of this Court,

as noted hereinearlier. It is difficult to accept that the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his aforesaid submission will lead us to hold that the landlord shall not be entitled to evict a tenant from a non- residential premises for bonafide requirement, when such ground for eviction has been made available only in case of residential premises. In our view, the view taken in Mohinder Prasad Jain (Supra) cannot be said to be a bad law on the ground that it was really an usurpation of legislative duties on the part of the Court by any stretch of imagination.   ,(    

  23    .   

.     ##..  

2.

# ## .

4

  1 #1 

"

# 

 .



.#

(

"

1(  

# 2  : . .

2 .

  

.

.2 .

 1..

"

1



2"D ;



   ( .  ..3  2

A# 



2

2<



<2

8>?

2E.C , 

3 . 



   . 1 .3#;



#"

# 1  .23 .

=  3# 

 

? #&  $)$ )53 ) (80,( ; 

 3  

    

.#  "

 

.#

 

2 ,<  .

# 23 

.# 1.

2##.

2.

"

1  "#    23

'

4,<   01+-)-2.(32)&3-.12+)4$*+&21 %-)2#()!$%(&#'()5$6-)-#'-#42+()7()1$1) !$8+'(7 -94:-.-#'

-#42+()1$%)-  -+-'$)!&#*+7()1$1!62 !$#&2- -#&1$%)- 23

&

.'

4 , <  

'

;&#4'5$6-)-&#7()1$101-)&#'()- !3&(#2&<&3"4)81/$)-=-)/!-'-)/6>-.--#22 1$%)- 1 2    ,(;1...1.1. 1 23

' 

 ;&#4'5$6-)-&#7()1$101-)&#'()-!3&(#2&<&3 "4)81/$)-=-)/!-'-)/6>-.--#22 1$%)-

4

: .3(; 

 3

  3

 # 

 

"

# -  



  # .

3 . 

#

2

# 

 

##.

 (  3( ..  

 

.3 

 !
 "

  -#$-):C/C



E #

-  ! -* E #2. ! -*