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

1994 Supreme(SC) 14

M.K.MUKHERJEE, S.MOHAN
Vinaykumar – Appellant
Versus
District Judge, Ghazipur – Respondent


ORDER

1. The application of the respondent under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act was allowed by the trial court. On appeal one of the contentions was whether the son of the landlord was in government service as a doctor and yet whether he desired to set up a private clinic after resigning the government service. To this the tenant had filed a counter. This affidavit was taken on file and on that basis the order of eviction was affirmed. The writ petition filed before the High Court by the tenant also suffered the same fate.

2. The only point urged before us in this civil appeal is that the son of the respondent/landlord is in government service and, therefore, he cannot have any bona fide need to start his private clinic. We are unable to agree. He has offered to resign through the affidavit that is on the record to show his intention to start a private clinic. There are no merits in this civil appeal which is dismissed. No costs.

For Citation: 1995 Supp(2) SCC 586

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