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

2003 Supreme(SC) 629

V. N. KHARE, S. B. SINHA
Sayeda Akhtar – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Ahad – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

Heard counsel for the parties.

With the consent of the parties, we dispose of this appeal finally at this stage.

2. The appellant herein is the landlord of premises bearing No. 505, Ward No. 15, Arif Nagar, Bhopal, whereas the respondent herein is the tenant. The landlord filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent as well as nuisance. Admittedly, the tenant neither deposited the rent within the stipulated period nor any application was moved for extension of time to deposit the same. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit and passed an order of eviction. The first appellate Court affirmed trial Court s decree. However, the High Court allowed the second appeal and reversed the decree. Consequently, the suit for eviction stood dismissed. The High Court was of the view that default committed by the tenant deserved condonation and the Court below ought to have given further time to deposit the arrears of rent. It is against the said judgment and order that the appellant-landlord is in appeal before us.

3. Section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 reads as under:

"13. (1) On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the land





















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