LexA.K. JAIN versus PREM KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 414
--.+
A
A.K. JAIN
r
v.
PREM KUMAR
'
(Civil Appeal No. 4680 of 2008)
B
J~LY 28, 2008
[TARUN. CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
'-r .....
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973:
s.13(3)(a)(i) - Eviction - On ground of personal neces-
c sity - Landlord staying in official residence in a different city -
During pendency of petition, son got married - Rent control-
/er dismissed eviction petition - Five days thereafter landlord
retired - First appellate authority took all developments into
I
{.
consideration and accepted the case of personal necessity -
I
D Justification of - Held: Justified.
s. 13(3)(a)(i)- Eviction sought by landlord for himself, wife,
)..
son and daughter - During pendency of petition, son got mar-
ried - Rent controller did not accept the case of personal ne-
E cessity and dismissed eviction petition - First appellate au-
thority took all developments into consideration and ordered
eviction based a/so on growing needs of son of landlord -
~-
Correctness of - Held: Correct as son, daughter-in-law and
grandchildren are part of landlord's family and their need is
F
part of landlord's personal necessity under s. 13(3)(a)(i) -
s. 13(3)(a)(ii) would not be applicable in such case.
f
~ t-
The appellant-landlord filed the eviction petition
against the respondent-tenant on the ground of personal
L
necessity. In the eviction petition filed under s.13(3)(a)(i)
~
G of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,
1973, the appellant pteaded that .he needed the entire
)
I-
house for his family which consisted of himself, his wife,
+-
a son and a daughter of marriageable age .. The tenant-
respondent resisted the ev.iction petition on the ground
~
.
H
414
A.K. JAIN v. PREM KUMAR
415
that appellant was posted in Hissar where he lived in an
A
official residence and his daughter was staying in another
city in connection with her studies.
During pendency of eviction petition before the Rent
Controller, the appellant's son got married. A part from the 8
son his daughter-in-law also came to live with appellant.
...
.
The daughter of the appellant also got mar1'ied and though
'
she lived with her husband, both of them frequently came
' -
to visit and stayed overnight with appellant.
The Rent Controller did not accept the appe_Uant's c
case and rejected the eviction petition .. Five days after, the
order of Rent Controller, the appellant retire~ from ~er-
vice on 31st August, 2004. In appeal bef~re th~ appe!l.ate
authority, he produced his retirement order. The ,ap"pel-
late authority allowed the appellant's appeal and accepted Q
the case of personal necessity taking into c,on~ider~ti9n
all the developments which took place since the institu-
tion of proceedings. High Court allowed the revision filed
by the tenant and restored the order of Rent Controller.
Hence the present appeal.
E
The respondent resisted the appeal o·n the grounds
---}
that the event of the appellant's retirement from service,
arising subsequent to the dismissal of eviction petition
by Rent Controller was never brought on record in ac-
cordance with law either by making any amendment in F
the pleadings or by a petition for bringing on record any
additional evidence; and that the order of eviction was
also based on the growing needs of the appellant's son
but in that connection there was no pleading as required
under s.13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court
-+
HELD: 1. The respondent-tenant does not deny the
fact that the appellant retired from service on 31st August,
2004. As a matter of fact, when asked pointedly, the Re-
H
. 416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A spondent was not in a position to deny that the appellant
had in fact retired from service on 31st August 2004. He,
however, contended that the fact'of the appellant's retire-
ment had not come before the court in accordance with
law. The appellant's retirement from service on the date
B as stated by him being admitted by the respondent, the
Appellate Authority was fully justified in taking that devel-
opment into consideration. No prejudice was caused to
the respondent because the appellant did not make any
formal amendments in the pleadings or because the re-
c tirement order filed before the Authority was not accom-
panied with.a formal petition under Order 41 Rule.27 CPC;
The contention raised on behalf of the respondent is ·not
onlyExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.