ASPECTS |
DETAILS |
Case Title |
Rashmi Kant Vijay Chandra & Ors. v. Baijnath Choubey & Co. |
Introduction |
The case states about the landlord-tenant dispute that spans over 90 years. The matter describes the eviction of a tenant, alleged subletting, and fraud. |
Factual Background |
The property in dispute was settled in 1933. The tenant, Baijnath Choubey, passed away, leaving a trust for his son. The plaintiffs allege illegal subletting. |
Legal Issues |
|
Applicable Law |
Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Order XXXI Rule 1 of the CPC. |
Analysis |
The High Court allowed the second appeal citing non-joinder of trustees. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, affirming subletting occurred. |
Conclusion |
The Supreme Court reinstated the eviction order, requiring the respondent to vacate by December 31, 2024. |
Current Scenario |
The Supreme Court’s order stands, directing the respondent to vacate the premises and bear any dues until the date of possession. |
CASE SUMMARY –
This case concerns the landlord-tenant dispute dating back to 1933 involving a trust property in Calcutta. The plaintiff-appellants sought the eviction of Baijnath Choubey & Co. due to alleged subletting and fraud. The City Civil Court ruled in favor of the landlords, but the High Court reversed the decision, citing non-joinder of necessary parties. The Supreme Court, however, overturned the High Court’s ruling, affirming the tenant’s subletting and upholding the eviction order. The respondent was ordered to vacate the premises by December 31, 2024, while paying any outstanding dues until possession is relinquished.
“In absence of any evidence, oral or documentary, the finding of the learned First Appellate Court is based on no evidence and therefore warrants interference.” — SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
