BALDEV KRISHAN versus SATYA NARAIN

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 27-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR, VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 8 S.C.R. 551 
BALDEV KRISHAN 
v. 
SATYA NARAIN 
(Civil Appeal No. 7163 of 2013) 
AUGUST 27, 2013 
rr.s. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1950- s. 13(1)(h) - Eviction suit- On the ground of bonafide 
requirement of the wife of landlord, landlord himself and his C 
family - Decreed by trial court and first appellate court -
During pendency of the case, demise of wife of the landlord 
- High Court set aside the decree holding that the ground of 
bonafide requirement did not survive due to demise of 
landlord's wife - In appeal to this Court, the parties reached o 
settlement, agreeing that tenants could occupy the tenanted 
premises for a further period of three years and the rent shall 
stand increased. 
Appellant-respondent filed a suit u/s.13(1 )(h) of 
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 
E 
1950 on the ground of bonafide requirement for himself 
and his family stating that his wife wanted to start 
business and premises was needed for the sake of 
business as well as for residence. Trial court as well as 
first appellate court decreed the suit. In the meantime, 
wife of the landlord died. High Court, in second appeal, 
held that due to death of the wife of landlord, ground for 
bonafide requirement did not survive. Hence the present 
appeal was filed. Parties entered into settlement. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, in view of the settlement 
between the parties, the Court 
HELD: The parties arrived at a settlement before this 
551 
G 
H 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A Court. It has been agreed that the rent shall stand 
increased to Rs.1500/- per month and that the 
Respondent-tenant shall be permitted to continue to 
occupy the tenanted premises for a further period of 
three years. However, the Respondent-tenant is directed 
B to hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the 
landlord or his legal heirs in the event of his demise on 
or before 31st August 2016, provided the tenant pays all 
the arrears of rent till date (if any); and with effect from 
September 2013 pays a sum of Rs.1500/- per month 
C towards damages for use and occupation. [Para 9] [557-
F-H] 
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor and General 
Traders (1975) 1 SCC770: 1975 (3) SCR 958; Phool Rani 
vs. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia (1973) 1 SCC688: 1973 (3) SCR 
D 679; Shanti/al Thakordas vs. Chimanlal Magan/al Telwa/a 
(1976) 4 SCC 417: 1977 (1) SCR 341; Hasmat Rai vs. 
RaghunathPrasad (1981) 3 SCC 103: 1981 (3) SCR 605; 
Shakunta/a Bai vs. Narayan Das (2004) 5 SCC 772: 2004 
(2) Suppl. SCR 114; Sheshamba/ vs. Che/ur Corporation 
E (2010) 3 SCC 470: 2010 (2) SCR 960 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1975 (3) SCR 958 
referred to 
Para 5 
F 
1973 (3) SCR 679 
referred to 
Para 5 
1977 (1) SCR 341 
referred to 
Para 5 
1981 (3) SCR 605 
referred to 
Para 5 
2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 114 referred to 
·Para 5 
G 
2010 (2) SCR 960 
referred to 
Para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
7163 of 2013 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.03.2011 of the 
BALDEV KRISHAN v. SATYA NARAIN 
553 
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil 
A 
Regular Second Appeal No. 216 of 2010. 
Puneet Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, for the Appellant. 
Aishwarya Bhati, Sanjoli Mittal, Amit Verma, Dr. 
Prikhshayat Singh, for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted. We have heard 
learned counsel for the parties in great detail, at the end of which 
a settlement was arrived at between them, the terms of which 
C 
we shall spell out later. 
2. The Appeal assails the order of the learned Single Judge 
of the High Court of Rajasthan in Second Appeal No.216 of 
2010 dated 11.3.2011 which in turn related to the legal propriety 
D 
of the decree of eviction passed by the First Appellate Court 
being the District Judge, Churu. The landlord/Appellant had filed 
a Suit for the eviction of the tenant/Respondent on sundry 
grounds out of which we are presently concerned only with that 
under Section 13(1 )(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of E 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which envisages the eviction of 
a tenant on the predication of the landlord, "that the premises 
are required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord (i) for the 
use or occupation of himself or his family, .... .". 
3. We have perused the Plaint, the salient averments of 
F 
which are that "in order to solve his financial problem t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.