Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SULTAN MOHIYUDDIN AND ORS. versus BASHEER AHMED SHARIFF AND ORS.

Decided
3 May 2002
Judges listed
R.C. LAHOTI, B.P. SINGH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 795 · 2002 INSC 260

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 795, margin F

The proceeding' for eviction were initiated under Section 21(l)(h) and {p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, l 961. The landlord, having lost from the High Court, has filed this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.

p. 795, margin F

During the pendency of these proceedings, Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 has come into force with effect from 31.12.200 I. According to the counter filed in this Court by the tenant-respondent, the area of the suit premises let out for non-residential purpose exceeds 14 square metres and, therefore, the premises are exempt from the provisions of the 1999 Act. It is the plea of the tenant-respondent that Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 being not applicable to the suit premises by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 2(3)(g), the proceedings shall stand abated under Section 70(2)( c) of the 1999 Act. The dimension of the premises, its being non-residential and the applicability of the relevant provisions of the 1999 Act referred to hereinabove is not disputed by the learned counsel for the landlord-appellant. The proceedings, therefore, stand abated. Nothing survives for adjudication on merits. The appeal be treated as disposed of. RP. Appeal disposed of.

pp. 795–796, margin G