Top StoriesTenant Cannot Dictate Adequacy Of Space Required By Landlord For Proposed Business Venture: Supreme Court Upholds Summary Eviction Order LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK30 Jan 2021 9:05 PMShare This – xA tenant cannot dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate, the Supreme Court observed while upholding an eviction order passed in favour of an NRI landlord under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.In this case, the landlords moved Rent Controller seeking immediate recovery of…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA tenant cannot dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate, the Supreme Court observed while upholding an eviction order passed in favour of an NRI landlord under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.In this case, the landlords moved Rent Controller seeking immediate recovery of possession of the rented premises by invoking the provisions of Section 13B read with Section 18A of the Act. The landlord claimed that he desires to start the business of sale, purchase and manufacture of furniture and for the proposed business, the property already in possession of the landlord, is insufficient. Rent Controller allowed their petition. Allowing the revision petition filed by tenants, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the eviction order and directed the Rent Controller to decide the case with grant of leave to contest to the tenants.In appeal before the Apex Court, the tenants did not challenge the NRI status of the landlord but they contended that the space available with the landlord would be adequate for the proposed furniture business and there is no need to seek eviction of the respondents, from their respective shops. In this context, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy observed:”On the above aspect, it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate. Insofar as the earlier eviction proceeding, the concerned vacant shops under possession of the landlords were duly disclosed, but the case of the landlord is that the premises/space under their possession is insufficient for the proposed furniture business. On the age aspect, it is seen that the respondents are also senior citizens but that has not affected their desire to continue their business in the tenanted premises. Therefore, age cannot be factored against the landlords in their proposed business.”In this case, the Rent Controller had denied the right to contest to the tenants taking note of the fact the landlord had returned to India and required the premises for his bona fide need. Upholding the summary proceedings under Section 13B for recovery of possession, the bench said:The special procedure for NRI landlord was deliberately designed by the Legislature to speedily secure possession of tenanted premises for bona fide need of the NRI landlords and such legislative intent to confer the right of summary eviction, as a one time measure cannot be frustrated, without strong reason. Having regard to the contentions raised by the tenants to oppose the Section 13B applications, we feel that the tenants have failed to provide adequate reason to secure the right to contest the summary proceedings and they should not be allowed to widen the scope of the limited defense under Section 13B. To fulfil their bona fide requirement, the landlords have availed only one opportunity under the summary procedure of Section 13B and their business requirement is not seriously contested by the tenants. Moreover, the required safeguard measures to prevent misuse of the special provisions are also found to be satisfied and that is why the leave to contest was denied to the tenants.CASE: BALWANT SINGH @ BANT SINGH vs. SUDARSHAN KUMAR [SLP (C) Nos. 10793-10794/2020]CORAM: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh RoyCOUNSEL: Sr. Adv Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv Manoj SwarupCITATION: LL 2021 SC 53Click here to Read/Download OrderNext Story
LOS ANGELES >> Facing a heartbroken family and a scornful judge on Thursday, two men, occasionally smirking, were sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to severely beating paramedic Bryan Stow at Dodger Stadium in 2011.Louie Sanchez, 31, was sentenced to eight years in state prison with time served after pleading guilty to one county of mayhem. Marvin Norwood, 33, pleaded guilty to one count of assault and was sentenced to four years in state prison with time served. Both men are from Rialto.The men were sentenced in Los Angeles Superior Court downtown by Judge George G. Lomeli. He called them “cowards.”“You are the biggest nightmare for people who attend public events,” Lomeli told them. Sanchez smirked, Lomeli scolded. However, federal authorities have charged both men with weapon possessions which could land them another 10 years in federal prison.“No sentencing you receive will ever be long enough,” Stow’s younger sister, Bonnie, told the attackers in court Thursday. “Eventually you will be released. Bryan’s sentence is a lifetime .”In her victim impact statement, Jacqueline Kain, Stow’s ex wife, said Stow was a “damn good” paramedic.“He worked very hard to get where he was and had you been the one attacked, bleeding on the ground, he was the type that would stop and try his best to save you,” Kain’s statement reads. “Bryan’s parents and sisters are having to care for him in every way you can think. Every morning you get to wake up and get out of bed and live. Bryan can’t do anything without assistance because of you.”Stow’s sister, Erin Collins’ ,statement that “Bryan can’t go to the bathroom by himself. He can’t shower by himself. He has to wear adult diapers.”“I hate having to even say that out loud but it shows the severity of what you did,” Collins said during the trial. “Being here I had hoped to see one tiny bit of remorse in order to not think you both are that despicable. But I don’t. How can we even begin to consider forgiveness when you aren’t even asking for it?”In a statement, the Los Angeles Dodgers said they are “pleased that the culpable parties have finally accepted responsibility for their actions and have been sentenced for their crimes.” Newsroom GuidelinesNews TipsContact UsReport an Error Stow, 45, a Santa Cruz paramedic, Giants fan and father of two, was leaving the March 31, 2011, Opening Day game between the Dodgers and the Giants when he was knocked unconscious by Sanchez in the parking lot. Norwood prevented Stow’s friends from helping him, according to witnesses. Stow was beaten to the point of disability and brain damage, and now requires around-the-clock care. Stow returned home last spring after two years in hospitals and rehabilitation centers, according to The Associated Press.“The attack you inflicted on my son…at Dodgers Stadium was so mean and vicious that it has left Bryan unable to care for himself,” Stow’s father, David, told the attackers in court. “Bryan has a lifetime of pain, therapy, (and) hard work daily that he must endure. He will strive to persevere.” Norwood and Sanchez did not appear in court until July 25, 2011, but arraignment was delayed. Deputy district attorney Gary Hearnsberger said both men have time-served credit going into their sentencing.“(Norwood’s) credit is different than Sanchez’s,” Hearnsberger said. “(With) his crime, mayhem, parole can be granted after you do 85 percent of your time.”Deputy Distinct Attorney Michele Hanisee told The Associated Press that Norwood’s credit for time already in custody appeared to account for at least a majority of the term, and he could be released immediately.