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

2007 Supreme(Pat) 1593

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
Shiv Dayal Taneja – Appellant
Versus
Vimla Devi – Respondent


Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 29.6.2006 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division II, Samastipur in Eviction Suit No. 6 of 2003 by which he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-landlord-opposite parties against the tenant-defendant-petitioners.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners sought to assail the finding of bona fide personal necessity on the ground that in paragraph no. 12 of the plaint it is stated that the husband of the plaintiff had informed the defendant-petitioners about the requirement of the suit premises by the landlady for starting Readymade Clothes business. It is submitted that subsequently in paragraph no. 14 of the plaint it is stated that Readymade clothes shop could not be started in the premises for setting up the business for the son and thus he is left without any work.

4. This Court does not find any contradiction in the statements made in the two paragraphs. It is clearly mentioned in para 12 that the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 is a Pardanaseen lady and her business and affairs are looked after by her husband, opposite party no. 2 and further the necessity of ope







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