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

2004 Supreme(Kar) 350

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
HABIB – Appellant
Versus
JAYAMMAL – Respondent


Advocates:
MUSTAQ AHMAD, R.B.SADASHIVAPPA

MOHAN SHANTHANAGOUDAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision by the tenant is directed against the order dated 10-6-2003 passed by the XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall unit, Bangalore in H. R. C No. 10420 of 1996. The Court below allowed the petition filed by the landlord under Section 27 (2) (r) of the Karnataka rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "rent Act, 1999", for short) corresponding to Section 21 (1) (h) of the repealed Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "old Act", for short) and ordered eviction of the tenant-petitioner herein from the petition premises.

( 2 ) THE landlords-respondents herein filed eviction petition under section 21 (1) (h) of the "old Act" before the Court below praying for eviction of the tenant-petitioner herein from the petition schedule premises viz. , Shop No. 1, Cauvery Complex, Municipal No. 17/8/2, 11th main road, Gokula I Phase, I Stage, Bangalore 54 measuring 9. 6' x 15' on the ground that one of the landlord i. e. , respondent 2 herein, namely, p. Nagaraj needs the premises in question for his bona fide use and personal occupation inasmuch as he wants to engage himself in plumbing contract work and plumbing and s


















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