M.S.NESARGI
CHANDRA BAI – Appellant
Versus
TUKARAM – Respondent
( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an application under S. 21 (1) (a) and (f) of the act contending that as per Ext. P1 Tukaram had to erect a construction worth about Rs. 600, but had failed to erect such a construction and that tukaram had not paid rental from 18-5-1964 and hence had become a defaulter within the meaning of Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act and lastly that tukaram had sub-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.