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

2003 Supreme(SC) 191

N.S.HEGDE, B.P.SINGH
Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Gudusaheb – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 12th January, 2000, the appellant is before us in this civil appeal.

4. The appellant purchased the suit schedule property on 3.1.1990 which was then occupied by the respondent as a tenant. On 6.10.1990, the appellant issued a notice to the respondent to vacate the premises in question as he required the same for his own bonafide use and occupation. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises, the appellant filed eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) & (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and for personal use and occupation. In the said petition, the appellant had pleaded that he had no other premises in Bijapur City where the suit schedule premises is situated and he being a resident in the said town and doing business in the said city occupying a rented premises, himself with his family required the said premises for his own use and occupation. The respondent had denied the claim of the appellant. The trial court rejected the eviction petition. In revision, the learned District









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