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

2000 Supreme(Guj) 726

D.C.SRIVASTAVA
DALSUKHRAI G. GHELANI – Appellant
Versus
BHIKHALAL HARILAL MASHRU – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: SURESH M.SHAH, VIJAY H.PATEL

D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) ). THIS is landlords revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act (for short "the Act" ).

( 2 ) ). One room and osari was let out by the landlord-revisionist to the defendant-respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 4. 50 ps. The landlord was residing at Nasik and doing business there. He came to Rajkot on 23-6-1981 whereafter he came to know that the tenant had demolished the entire suit premises without his consent and was constructing new suit premises without written consent or permission from the landlord. Accordingly, the suit for eviction was filed under sec. 13 (l) (b) of the Rent Act.

( 3 ) ). The suit was resisted by the defendant-respondent denying the aforesaid allegation of the landlord. He pleaded that the suit premises was in dilapidated condition, on 21-5-1971 one wall of the suit premises had fallen down and on 7-5-1981 the roof of the suit premises bent down. The defendant informed the plaintiff-landlord about the condition of the suit premises through notice dated 8-5-1983 but the plaintiff did not get the suit premises repaired. Thereafter, back side wall had also fallen down in rainy season. Consequently, the resondent- defendant constru












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