1987 JTR(SC) 111
1987 Supp SCC 254
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.Natarajan : Sabyasachi Mukharjee
Ramchandra Jai Ram Randive (Since Deceased) Through Lrs.
Versus
Chandanmal Rupchand
Case No. : 2209 of 1985
Date of Decision : 1/30/87
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
Constitution of India - Article 136 – Condo nation of delay – Jurisdiction - IN this case, leave to appeal was granted. However we find that before the High court, the appellant had given an undertaking to hand over and deliver vacant possession by end - On the basis of this undertaking, the High court granted time up to vacate the premises in question – Held, In that view of the matter, whatever be the merits of the case, we in exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution decline to interfere with the finding made by the High court appeal must therefore fail - It however appears that the appellant is carrying on a business of shop owner for some time and the respondent is a charitable institution. While the appeal is dismissed, we direct that in case the respondent proposes to let out the premises, then he should give the first option to the appellant upon his arranging to pay a market rate for the same - Appeal is dismissed
Constitution of India - Article 136 – Condo nation of delay – Jurisdiction - IN this case, leave to appeal was granted. However we find that before the High court, the appellant had given an undertaking to hand over and deliver vacant possession by end - On the basis of this undertaking, the High court granted time up to vacate the premises in question – Held, In that view of the matter, whatever be the merits of the case, we in exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution decline to interfere with the finding made by the High court appeal must therefore fail - It however appears that the appellant is carrying on a business of shop owner for some time and the respondent is a charitable institution. While the appeal is dismissed, we direct that in case the respondent proposes to let out the premises, then he should give the first option to the appellant upon his arranging to pay a market rate for the same - Appeal is dismissed
(1) IN this case, leave to appeal was granted. However we find that before the High court, the appellant had given an undertaking on 8/09/1983 to hand over and deliver vacant possession by the end of September 1985. On the basis of this undertaking, the High court granted time up to September 1985 to vacate the premises in question. In that view of the matter, whatever be the merits of the case, we in exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution decline to interfere with the finding made by the High court.The appeal must therefore fail.
(2) IT however appears that the appellant is carrying on a business of shop owner for some time and the respondent is a charitable institution. While the appeal is dismissed, we direct that in case the respondent proposes to let out the premises, then he should give the first option to the appellant upon his arranging to pay a market rate for the same. With thes directions, the appeal is dismissed and in the facts of the case, we make no order as to costs.