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

2000 Supreme(SC) 876

V.N.KHARE, S.N.PHUKAN
Kumud Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Central Bank Of India LTD. – Respondent


ORDER

The Appellant herein is the landlady. She filed a suit for possession, damages as well as mesne profit. The suit was decreed on 30th April, 1994 and the tenant was required to pay mesne profit @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. Thereafter the Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad against the decree passed by the trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant deposited mesne profit with effect from 22nd January, 1991 @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. Subsequently, when the first appeal came up for hearing before the High Court, it was found that the landlady has not terminated the tenancy by giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. On this short ground, the appeal was allowed and decree of the trial Court was set aside. It is against the said decision of the High Court, the landlady is in appeal before us.

2. After the judgment of the High Court, the landlady terminated the tenancy by giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and thereafter filed a suit for possession and mesne profit. The trial Court decreed the suit and awarded mesne profit @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. The tenant on the basis of th




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