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

2001 Supreme(Kar) 324

M.P.CHINNAPPA
S. NARAHARI – Appellant
Versus
S. PANKAJA – Respondent


Advocates:
C.S.KOTHAVALE, G.V.RAMAIAH, K.M.Ramachandra Prasad, Veena Kothavale

CHINNAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THE undisputed facts are that the first respondent is the wife and Respondents No. 2 to 4 are daughters of Sri C. B. Shankar Rao who was the owner of the property bearing No. 140, Margosa Road, malleshwaram, Bangalore admeasuring 100 x 45 ft wherein the petitioners of these two petitions are the tenants of the non-residential premises more fully described in the schedule and paying admitted quantum of rent. Sri C. B. Shankar Rao passed away in the Year 1989 leaving behind his wife and daughters as his legal heirs. The 4th respondent married one Sharkar Rao in the year 1991 and both of them are practicing advocates of this Bar. They are living in a rented house situated adjacent to the premises and running their law chambers from that residence. The respondent filed HRC No. 66 and 67/94 on the file of Small Causes Judge, Bangalore claiming possession under Section 21 (1) (h) and (j) of the Act alleging that the 4th respondent intends to renovate and remodel the property which are in occupation of the petitioners and to occupy the same for her residence and also to use certain portion as their Law chambers as they are living in a rented premises. It is also allege
































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