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

2004 Supreme(Kar) 87

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, H.BILLAPPA
B. PRAKASH CHAND – Appellant
Versus
S. V. GYANCHAND JAIN – Respondent


RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord in regard to a shop premises measuring more than 14sq. m. situated at Sakleshpur (Premises for short ). The landlord filed HRC No. 3/1995 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Sakleshpur for eviction of the tenant under Section 21 (1) Provisos (a) (h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (Old Act for short ). After evidence, the said petition was allowed under Section 21 (1) Proviso (h) of the Old Act by order dated 18. 8. 2000 and the tenant was directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the landlord within one month.

( 2 ) FEELING aggrieved, the tenant (petitioner herein) filed a Revision Petition under Section 50 (2) of the Old Act before the District Judge, Hassan on 31-8-2000 registered as HRC. R. P. No. 19/2000.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the said revision proceedings, the Old Act was replaced by the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 (New Act for short ). Sections 1, 3 and 6 of the New Act came into force on 5. 12. 2001 and the remaining provisions of the New Act came into force on 31. 12. 2001. The provisions of the New Act were inapplicable to the premises havin









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