NDLI: Abbobaker and Anr. Vs. Mahalakshmi Trading Co.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	21(1)(j) and 26 to 28 Rent Control and Eviction: Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 : Sections 14(6)
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (22 of 1961)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Rent Control and Eviction Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 : Sections 14(6), 21(1)(j) and 26 to 28.Demolition and reconstruction of building-Eviction petition disposed of on the basis of compromise entered into between landlord and tenant-Compromise stipulated that tenant would be accommodated in the new building after reconstruction on rent "at concessional rate of 25% less of the prevailing/air rent in the area"-Tenant got possession of the premises after executing the compromise decree without taking recourse to right of re-entry into the reconstructed building under S. 27- "Fair rent"-Meaning of- Held : As the tenant has not taken recourse to S. 27 he is liable to pay the rent as agreed to under the compromise decree-Expression ''prevailing fair rent in the area" does not indicate the fair rent as fixed under S. 14 as such fixation does not depend upon the prevailing rent in the area-But it indicates the reasonable rent received in the area in respect of similar premises. "Prevailing fair rent in the area"-Modes of arriving at-By calling upon the Controller to determine the same by taking evidence from the parties not being guided by considerations of fair rent under the statute By requiring a valuer to inspect the premises and submit a report for ultimate finding by Supreme Court-By calling upon the counsel for the parties to indicate the prevailing rent in the area in respect of the premises in possession of the tenant and determine the/air rent on that basis-Since first two modes involve protracted litigation and delay the last mode is preferred in the interest of justice-Hence, having regard to the suggestions given at the Bar, the location of the premises, the rent at which the tenant was occupying the earlier premises which stood demolished and the new construction, the prevailing fair rent in the area fixed by Supreme Court under Art. 142 for the premises in question with a view to doing complete justice in the matter-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 142.The appellant-landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant respondent. The said eviction petition was disposed of on the basis of a compromise entered into between the landlord and tenant. The compromise ... petition formed a )!art of the decree of the court. The compromise stimulated that the tenant would be accommodated in the new building after re-construction on a rent "at concessional rate of 25% less of the prevailing fair rent in the area." After the building was re-constructed the tenant got the possession of the premises by executing the compromise decree without taking recourse to Section 27 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The appellant-landlord approached the High Court contending that the respondent-tenant could not have merely obtained possession of the premises without paying the rent as stipulated in the compromise decree. The respondent-tenant contended that the tenant would be liable to pay 25% less of the fair rent to he determined by the Controller under Section.14 of the Act. The High Court held that the fair rent of the premises had to be determined by the Controller under Section 14 of the Act. The High Court further held that the tenant would be liable to pay the rent at a concessional rate of 25% less of such fair rent determined by the Controller. Being aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the appellant-landlord preferred the present appeal.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik
Neutral Citation	1998 INSC 78
Petitioner	Abbobaker And Anr.
Respondent	Mahalakshmi Trading Co.
SCR	[1998] 1 S.C.R. 762
Judgement Date	1998-02-10
Case Number	757

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Abbobaker and Anr. Vs. Mahalakshmi Trading Co.

Please Log-in to view this content

Siddalingamma and Anr. Vs. Mamtha Shenoy

Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co.

Akhileshwar Kumar and Ors. Vs. Mustaqim and Ors.

Shiv Dutt Jadiya Vs. Ganga Devi

Umesh Verma Vs. Jai Devi Bhandari and Anr.

N.r. Narayan Swamy Vs. B. Francis Jagan

A. Mahalakshmi Vs. Bala Venkatram (d) Through Lr. & Anr.

Dwarkaprasad Vs. Niranjan and Anr.

K. Raghunath Vs. Chandrasekhar and Anr.

Abbobaker and Anr. Vs. Mahalakshmi Trading Co.

Abbobaker and Anr. Vs. Mahalakshmi Trading Co.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Siddalingamma and Anr. Vs. Mamtha Shenoy

Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co.

Akhileshwar Kumar and Ors. Vs. Mustaqim and Ors.

Shiv Dutt Jadiya Vs. Ganga Devi

Umesh Verma Vs. Jai Devi Bhandari and Anr.

N.r. Narayan Swamy Vs. B. Francis Jagan

A. Mahalakshmi Vs. Bala Venkatram (d) Through Lr. & Anr.

Dwarkaprasad Vs. Niranjan and Anr.

K. Raghunath Vs. Chandrasekhar and Anr.

Abbobaker and Anr. Vs. Mahalakshmi Trading Co.