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

2003 Supreme(Raj) 806

A.C.GOYAL
Jagdish – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar Sharma – Respondent


Advocates:
B. Dutta, Senior Counsel and J.P. Goyal, Advocate for the Appellant.
M.M. Ranjan, Advocate for the Respondents.

Judgment

A.C. Goyal, J.-Brief facts giving rise to this first appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit on 29.1993 for eviction from the suit shop on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide necessity; sub-letting and nuisance with the averments that the shop measuring 15’x 20’ft situated on Moti Lab Atal Road, Jaipur was let out to the appellant-defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 500/-on certain terms and conditions mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. The tenancy was oral. The defendant did not pay rent from the month of May, 1992. The plaintiff requires the suit shop for his own profession. The plaintiff has no residential house of his own at Jaipur. He wants to construct residential house upon the details of other grounds of eviction, he prayed for decree of eviction.

2. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that the suit shop was let out to his father by plaintiffs father. Denying all the grounds of eviction, it was pleaded that rent upto September, 1990 was paid to Mr.

C.N. Sharma, father, of the plaintiff Thereafter, he was informed vide letter dated 310.1991 that rent from October, 1990 maybe paid to the plaintiff Hence he paid the






















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