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

1994 Supreme(SC) 165

M.K.MUKHERJEE, S.MOHAN
P. V. Papanna – Appellant
Versus
K. Padmanabhaiah – Respondent


Advocates:
C.SITARAMIAH, M.R.JANARDHAN, M.SHIVA PRASAD, P.Mahale, P.R.RAMASESHESH.S.PARIHARHAR, S.S.JAVALI

Judgment

M. K. MUKHERJEE, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. This appeal stems from the judgment and order dated October 31, 1991 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Civil Revision Petition No. 4138 of 1990. Facts and circumstances leading to this appeal are as under:-

On March 22,1973 one P. V. Jayashankar filed an application in the first Court of the Munsiff at Bangalore under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 seeking recovery of possession of his non-residential premises from his tenant, the respondent herein. Though recovery of possession was sought for on various grounds the trial Court, by its judgment and order dated October 24, 1980, allowed the application solely on the ground that the suit premises were bona fide required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation and directed the tenant to handover vacant possession of the same to Shri Jayashankar. The trial Court granted two years time to the tenant to comply with its direction. Against the order of eviction the tenant preferred a revision petition in the High Court of Karnataka which was dismissed on December 19, 1993. The High Court, however, granted four years time to the tenant to vacate


























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