Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Kalicharan – Appellant
Versus
Sacheti Brothers – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Legal representatives of original defendant Kalicharan have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.2.2010 passed in Civil Regular First Appeal No.271/2004 (262/2009) by the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast track) No.4, Ajmer, affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.9.2004 passed in Civil Suit No.58/95 (9/2002) by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Ajmer whereby and whereunder the decree for eviction and arrears of rent has been passed in favour of respondents-plaintiffs and against defendants- present appellants.
2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that respondents-landlord instituted civil suit on 16.2.1987 against defendant Kalicharan, in relation to shop in question situated at Madargate, Ajmer which was let out in the year 1948 at the rate of Rs.44/-per month in the name of one Naval Kishore, who happens to be the younger brother of defendant Kalicharan. It was stated in the plaint that original tenant Naval Kishore has died on 28.12.1986 and defendant Kalicharan was in Railway service, who never did any business with tenant Naval Kishore in the rented shop, the
Amendments to pleadings must not change the nature of the suit and should be necessary for determining the real controversy, with oversight not being a valid ground for delay.
Concurrent findings of fact, even if erroneous, cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. Perversity in findings of fact requires a complete misreading of evidence or should be based only on conjecture....
The duty of the advocate to obtain relevant instructions and the need to avoid penalizing litigants for unintentional omissions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for eviction was maintainable even if filed by two members of 'Association of Persons', and the plaintiff had succeeded in proving th....
The plaintiff in a tenancy dispute must prove non-use of the property for over six months to recover possession; the defendants failed to meet this burden, affirming the plaintiff's claims.
An amendment to a plaint to include an additional ground for eviction in a pending suit is permissible if it does not change the nature and character of the suit, introduce a new cause of action, or ....
Tenancy rights persist despite property destruction; claims of tenancy surrender require substantial proof, as verbal agreements are recognized under law.
A landlord may amend grounds for eviction of a tenant, including reasonable requirement, even post-moratorium, as long as one ground is proven to validate the eviction decree.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
