MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
Lal Chandra Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Rajkishore – Respondent
1. Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. S.S. Dwivedi on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Arora appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The defendant-petitioner have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 25.05.2011 passed by Munsif IIIrd Patna in eviction suit No.51 of 2002 whereby the learned Munsif rejected the petition dated 23.05.2011 filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement.
3. The plaintiff’s case in short is that the plaintiff filed the aforesaid eviction suit on the ground of bonafide personal necessity for his son Jitendra Kumar Gupta who is unemployed and the suit premises is suitable for the business purpose. Written statement was filed by the defendant alleging that there is no personal necessity and the plaintiffs filed the suit only to pressurize the defendant to increase rent from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month.
4. The defendants filed the amendment application alleging that during the pendency of the present suit for eviction, many shops premises of the plaintiff were vacated by other tenants and the plaintiffs let
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.