SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 1643

S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. JAGANNADHA RAO
Martin And Harris – Appellant
Versus
Vith Additional District Judge – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-Leave granted.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are formal parties being authorities and hence it was not necessary to hear them. By consent of learned counsel for the contesting parties the appeal was taken up for final disposal and having heard them it is being decided by this judgment.

3. In this appeal question of maintainability of application for possession moved by respondent No.3 landlord against the appellant-tenant under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) mainly falls for consideration. The appellant has also raised a subsidiary ground centering round a subsequent event to which we will make a reference at an appropriate stage in this judgment. A few introductory facts leading to this appeal are required to be noted at the outset to appreciate the aforesaid controversy between the parties.

Introductory Facts

4. Respondent No. 3 purchased the suit property being Bungalow No. 21-C, Ashok Marg, Lucknow, wherein the appellant-company is occupying an area of 9000 sq. ft. as a tenant since 28th December 1966. Respondent No. 3 was serving in Indian Army





















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top