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

1983 Supreme(Guj) 9

A.P.RAVANI, V.V.BEDARKAR
BABULAL RAMESHWARLAL – Appellant
Versus
DIGVIJAY PULSE MILL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: N.J.MEHTA, SURESH M.SHAH

A. P. RAVANI, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant plaintiff who lost in trial court does not dispute the finding of the trial court that he has failed to establish relationship of licensor and licensee. However it is contended that the trial Court has found that an interest in the premises is created and that the defendant in its written statement has admitted that its possession is unlawful and therefore decree for eviction should be passed in favour of the plaintiff. This contention is raised although there is no such case in the pleadings of the plaintiff; no such issue is raised and that there is no such evidence also. On the contrary the plaintiff has positively asserted in his evidence that the defendant was not his tenant.

( 2 ) AFTER having a brief resume of the facts the contentions raised by the appellant plaintiff may be examined.

( 3 ) THE appellant plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 2728 of 1970 in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad against the defendant firm alleging that he himself was a tenant of the property belonging to Katpitia Mahajan Ahmedabad that the defendant is a grain merchant and that he allowed the defendant to use a part of this premises on the basis of the arrangement tha
















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