w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Fibre Bond (Sales) v/s Chand Rani and Another


Company & Directors' Information:- S S S FIBRE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17110PB2005PLC027818

Company & Directors' Information:- THE BOND COMPANY LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65993WB1935PLC090636

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA BOND PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH2008PTC178990

Company & Directors' Information:- G L FIBRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17112PB2010PTC033873

Company & Directors' Information:- FIBRE BOND PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1970PTC005238

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA FIBRE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U17232WB1968PTC027401

Company & Directors' Information:- BOND - N - BOND PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100DL2015PTC276743

Company & Directors' Information:- FIBRE BOND SALES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1980PTC010735

Company & Directors' Information:- J. BOND & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1966PTC004628

Company & Directors' Information:- THE BOND COMPANY LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U65993RJ1935PLC000046

    SLP (Civil) No. 4557 of 1993

    Decided On, 07 May 1993

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, HON'BLE JUSTICE N. VENKATACHALA AND HON'BLE JUSTICE R. M. SAHAI

   



Judgment Text

1. Validity of the order passed by the Delhi High Court directing eviction of the petitioner on an application filed under Section 14-D by the landlady, a widow, has been challenged in this Court. It is claimed that leave to defend having been granted in an earlier petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) the Rent Control Officer was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application. We do not find any merit in the submission as the landlord under Section 14-D is a classified landlord with special rights. It was then urged that since an application under Section 14(1)(e) was pending the second application for the same purpose could not have been entertained. The submission is again devoid of any merit as the earlier application under Section 14(1)(e) was filed under unamended Act whereas the latter application was filed after a special right was conferred on the landlord


2. It was vehemently argued that since the landlady and her son were co-owners and joint lessees the provisions of Section 14-D were not applicable. Reliance is placed on Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India ( 1991 (2) SCC 87). We do not propose to pronounce on the correctness or otherwise of the submission raised by the learned counsel for petitioner and leave the question open for decision as in our opinion on facts found if is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The petition is acco

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rdingly dismissed. The tenant is, however, granted four months time to vacate the premises subject to his filing usual undertaking within one month from today.
O R