CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2017 › Ram Janki Mandir v. Nuruddin Bharmal

Ram Janki Mandir v. Nuruddin Bharmal

Supreme Court of India · 22 March 2017

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
22 March 2017
Case no.
C.A. No. 4354 of 2017
Bench
Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi
Length
3 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4354 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.33992/2013]

RAM JANKI MANDIR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

NURUDDIN BHARMAL RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant/landlord filed a petition for eviction of the respondent/tenant on three grounds, i.e. (i) arrears of rent, (ii) nuisance; and (iii) need for reconstruction. The Trial Court allowed the eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and need for reconstruction. The same was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The respondent/tenant moved the High Court. On the ground of need for reconstruction, the High Court took the view that the

JUDGMENT

Trial Court should have ascertained whether the respondent/tenant was willing to reoccupy the premises after reconstruction and having not done that, the matter was remitted to the Trial Court.

3. No doubt, there is a statutory requirement of ascertainment of willingness of the tenant as to whether he would be prepared to reoccupy the premises after reconstruction. But on the facts of the case, there is a concurrent finding of arrears of rent and that aspect is not seriously disputed also. Therefore, in any case, the eviction on the ground of arrears of rent should have been sustained. Once that is sustained, there is no question of ascertainment of the willingness of the tenant after reconstruction.

4. In that view of the matter, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

5. However, we record the gracious submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/landlord that in the peculiar facts of this case, the appellant/landlord does not intend to recover the arrears of rent from the respondent/tenant.

6.
The appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT

7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

8. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH] .......................J. [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI; MARCH 22, 2017.

Ask CaseMinister about Ram Janki Mandir v. Nuruddin Bharmal

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp