1988 JTR(SC) 603
1988 2 APLJ 48 ; 1988 4 JT 83 ; 1988 2 RCR(Rent) 549 ; 1988 2 RCR(Rent) 595 ; 1988 3 SCC 586
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.Ranganathan : Sabyasachi Mukharjee
M.Gopala Karup
Versus
S.A.Abdul Rahim
Case No. : 10288 of 1983
Date of Decision : 9/19/88
Advocates Appeared: Balachandran V. : Keshwani R.N.
Land Laws – Rent Laws – Decree for eviction – Held, In the premises, in view of the fact that the respondents require the premises bona fide for the purpose of their business, as found by the Appellate Authority, no interference is called for in this case. – Appeal is dismissed. – However, the appellant is in occupation of the premises for quite a long time and some time has to be given to them to adjust their affairs. – In the premises court direct that the decree for eviction will not be executed till 31/12/1989 provided the appellant files the usual undertaking within four weeks from today. – Appeal Disposed of
Land Laws – Rent Laws – Decree for eviction – Held, In the premises, in view of the fact that the respondents require the premises bona fide for the purpose of their business, as found by the Appellate Authority, no interference is called for in this case. – Appeal is dismissed. – However, the appellant is in occupation of the premises for quite a long time and some time has to be given to them to adjust their affairs. – In the premises court direct that the decree for eviction will not be executed till 31/12/1989 provided the appellant files the usual undertaking within four weeks from today. – Appeal Disposed of
R.N.KESHWANI, V.BALACHANDRAN
(1) IN view of the decision of this court in Krishna Nair & Ors. v. Ghouse Basha (1987 4 SCC 404) and also considering in light of the facts found by the Appellate Authority which were not interfered with by the High court, we are of the opinion that even in the light of the observations of this court in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. D. Mohan Lal Sowcar (Judgment Today 19881 S.C. 664), the judgment under appeal cannot be interfered with.
(2) IN the premises, in view of the fact that the respondents require the premises bona fide for the purpose of their business, as found by the Appellate Authority, no interference is called for in this case. The appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is in occupation of the premises for quite a long time and some time has to be given to them to adjust their affairs. In the premises we direct that the decree for eviction will not be executed till 31/12/1989 provided the appellant files the usual undertaking within four weeks from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.