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

1979 Supreme(Guj) 161

N.H.BHATT
PITAMBER PARSHOTAM – Appellant
Versus
LILABEN BHALCHANDBHAI (HEIRS OF DECD. BHAICHAND) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.D.Vyas, MAHENDRA A.PATEL, SURESH M.SHAH

N. H. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is the revision application under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act by the owners of business premises at Rajkot who have thrown all moral and ethical standards to wind for the purpose of their selfish ends and had it not been for jurisdictional difficulty raised by them I would have happily rejected their revision application.

( 2 ) A few facts requires to be stated. These applicants-landlords had filed in the competent rent court of Rajkot a Regular Civil Suit No. 298 against the deceased tenant Bhaichand Virchandbhai whose three sons opponents Nos. 1 2 and 3 are his heirs and legal representatives. The said suit filed by the applicants-landlords in the court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Rajkot was for possession of the tended property godown 22x 8. 2 on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by them for carrying out the repairs which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. The suit was filed on 31 March 1971 On 27th April 1971 the parties entered into compromise which is Ex. 39. Ex. 38 on the record of the present proceedings is the plaint in that suit. As per the compromise Ex. 39 the landlords a











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