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

1972 Supreme(Raj) 190

KAN SINGH
HIRANAND – Appellant
Versus
UMAID RAJ – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.Mohanani, Gopalraj Singhvi, P.C.Bhandari

Judgment


KAN SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenants second appeal directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, ordering the tenants eviction from the suit premises.

( 2 ) THE eviction from the suit Premises was sought on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the landlord. The tenant resisted the suit. This gave rise to the following four issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff has bona fide and reasonable necessity for the house and it is necessary for him to get the house evicted? 2. Whether the defendant is a habitual defaulter? 3. Whether the expenses for light and water were included in the rent? 4. Whether the notice is invalid?

An application was made by the tenant in the trial Court for the determination of the rent and by its order dated 17-2-1969 the learned Munsiff determined the rent at Rs. 1,090/ -. The tenant was directed to pay this rent as also the future rent. However, as the tenant had only paid Rs. 1,000/- and not the full amount of Rs. 1. 090/- the learned Munsiff struck off the defence of the tenant on the application made by the landlord. The plaintiff-landlord appeared in his evidence. The tenant want














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