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

2006 Supreme(Raj) 2865

VINEET KOTHARI
Vadhumal Kanhaiyalal – Appellant
Versus
Hemchand – Respondent


For the Defendant/Appellants:B.L. Mandhana, Advocate.
For the Plaintiff/Respondents:Sanjay Joshi, Man Singh Gupta, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

1. - The instant second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.2.1993 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, No. 1, Ajmer whereby he upheld the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1983 passed by the learned Munsiff Magistrate , Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 229/1976 (107/1978) whereby the decree of eviction and arrears of rent was passed by the learned Munsiff against the tenant appellants.

2. The substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission of this appeal are as under:

(i) Whether the suit filed on 6.7.1976 on the ground of non-payment of rent was not pre-mature?

(ii) Whether in view of the facts found by the Courts below, it can be legally said that the tenant had sub-let the premises in dispute or had parted with the possession thereof? and

(iii) Whether in view of the fact that Dr. Poonam Chand son of one of the plaintiffs having been employed in the Government service, the decree-for eviction on the ground of personal requirement can be sustained?

3. The brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the plaintiffs Mr. Hem Chand Ranka and Mr. Jai Chand Ranka let out a shop bearing No. AMC-349NI1 situated 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