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

1981 Supreme(Bom) 45

JAHAGIRDAR
Rahimtulla Abdul Rahiman Nakib – Appellant
Versus
Chandrakant Anant Moog – Respondent


Advocates:
Arvind V. Bandivadekar, for Petitioner; Bhimrao N. Naik, for Respondents.

ORDER :- In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, a question of law has been raised, but I am relieved of entering into a detailed discussion of the same because that has been already decided by authorities which are binding upon me. The petitioner is the tenant of a room forming part of a building bearing C.T.S. No. 2197 situate at Kolhapur and the respondents' father was the original owner of the said house. It is an admitted position that the respondents' father has died and the respondents are some of the legal representatives of the original owner. It has been brought on record that apart from the five respondents, their father left behind him his widow and three daughters. The foundation of the arguments advanced in the two Courts below and repeated before me is this fact that it is not the five respondents alone who are the owners of the suit premise, but their mother and the three sisters are also owners of the same.

2. Regular Civil Suit No.438 of 1973 was filed by the five respondents for possession of the suit premises on the ground among others, that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months and he has not complied with 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