The Supreme Court has found that the protection offered to a statutory tenant by Rent Control Laws can most effectively triumph over following the system specified in such legal guidelines.
The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that this kind of statutory tenant could be evicted only by following the method laid down in applicable rent control legal guidelines and no longer using filing in shape for possession against them.
Shiv Dev Kaur let loose belongings to Chander Parkash Soni for rent. The life estate granted to Shiv Dev Kaur had enabled her to create a tenancy and get hold of the lease from the tenants at the property. After Kaur died, the opposite heirs became the proprietors of the assets. They filed a match for ownership against the tenant because the tenant became a trespasser after Kaur died. The trial court docket decreed the Suit. The High Court, in 2d appeal, brushed off the Suit.
While thinking about the attraction against the High Court judgment, the bench determined that Soni, in whose favor a tenancy turned into created, has received the status of a statutory tenant [under the definition of the expression ‘tenant’ in Section 2(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949] and that fame does not stand prevented with the aid of the death of Kaur. It stated:
The bench further observed that statutory safety granted for the advantage of the tenants under unique tenancy laws is to be regarded from the viewpoint of defensive the interests of a selected class. Restrictions on the healing of ownership of the premises let loose to the tenants were imposed for the gain of the tenants as a be counted of legislative policy, it stated. While upholding the High Court judgment, the bench said: