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

2001 Supreme(Kar) 569

K.SREEDHAR RAO
ELSIE CONCESSO KAMATH – Appellant
Versus
ROSA D SOUZA – Respondent


Advocates:
J.M.D.Cunha, SANATH KUMAR SHETTY

K. SREEDHAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE REVISION FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, mangalore IN R. R. P. NO. 121 OF 1992. THE PETITIONER IS THE LANDLADY. THE respondent IS THE TENANT. THE LANDLADY FILED A PETITION FOR EVICTION IN h. R. C. NO. 99 OF 1990 ON "the FILE OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, MANGALORE under SECTION 21 (L) (A ). THE UNDISPUTED FACTS REVEAL THAT THE PETITION premises IS TENANTED ON A MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 450/- AND THAT AT THE relevant POINT OF TIME THERE WERE ARREARS OF THREE MONTHS RENTS PAYABLE by THE TENANT. THERE ARE OTHER TWO PREMISES ADJOINING THE PRESENT PREMISES having COMMON ELECTRICITY METER. IT IS SAID THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE month OF OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER 1989 ADJOINING TENANT VACATED THE PREMISES and HE DID NOT PAY THE ELECTRICITY BILLS. THE TENANT/respondent AND other TENANT IN THE OTHER ADJOINED PREMISES PAID THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED for THE MONTH. THE TENANT/respondent CONTRIBUTES A SUM OF RS. 116/- towards THE PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY BILL. IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS A demand MADE BY THE TENANT TO THE LANDLADY TO PAY THE ELECTRICITY BILL while TENDERING RENTS. THE LANDLADY REFUSED TO PAY THE ELECTRICITY BILL pertaining TO THE VACATED TENANT. TH







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