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

1987 Supreme(Kar) 226

K.S.BHATT, P.C.JAIN
PRATAPSINGH – Appellant
Versus
JAIBUNNISA BEGUM – Respondent


Advocates:
C.V.GOKAVI, J.S.GUNJAL, Javali, S.H.Hatti, Umesh R.Malimath

SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions were referred for consideration by the Division Bench and accordingly they have come up before us for hearing.

( 2 ) SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved, they are heard together and disposed of by the following order.

( 3 ) THE parties are same in both the petitions. Petitioners claim to be the owners, sought eviction of the respondents-tenants under various sub-clauses of S. 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act') alleging that the respondents were the lessees. The petitioners claim to be the descendants of one Lachiramsing, whose grandfather was Parwatsing. The premises were bits of open land in the year 1849 and were granted on lease by Lachiramsing in favour of one Mohamad Gori Soudagar under a registered lease deed (Ex. P. 1 ). According to the petitioners the lease was for a period of 20 years and thereafter the tenant had to continue as a lessee under the lessor and the lessor was entitled to seek possession at any time. It is further averred by the petitioners that the lessee was permitted to put up shop buildings on a consolidated rent of Rs. 50/for the lease period of 20 years and
























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