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

2002 Supreme(Kar) 717

A.V.SRINIVASA REDDY
K. N. SARASWATHAMMA – Appellant
Versus
SARALA – Respondent


Advocates:
R.B.SADASHIVAPPA

SRINIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition filed under (the repealed Act for short) the petitioner-landlord prays for setting aside the order dated 6. 11. 1998 passed in h. R. C. No. 1493/96 by the XVIIIth Addl. Small Causes Judge, bangalore, dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act.

( 2 ) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the revision, briefly stated, are as under: the landlady filed the petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the repealed Act for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the accommodation that was available with her was not sufficient for her requirement. The son of the petitioner examined himself as p. W. 1. The respondent examined herself but did not submit to cross-examination by the petitioner. The Court-below came to the conclusion that the requirement of the petitioner is reasonable but proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner. The conclusion reached by the Courtbelow on the question of bonafides was accentuated by the fact that the first and third floor portions fell vacant even before filing of the petition and the petitioner failed to occupy them despite her










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