Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Poonam Chand Jatil Son of Dhanna Lal – Appellant
Versus
Khalil Ahmed Son of Abdul Shakur, State Employees – Respondent
Judgment
1. Appellant-defendant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, assailing the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2011 passed in Civil Regular First Appeal No.22/2007 by Additional District Judge No.3, Kota, affirming the judgment and decree for rent and eviction dated 26.3.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.489/1987 by Civil Judge (Junior Division) North, Kota whereby suit for rent and eviction has been decreed against defendant and in favour of plaintiffs.
2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the impugned judgments on record.
3. Rented premise is one room situated in House No.199, Dadwada, Bheemganj Mandi, Kota which is in tenancy of appellant-defendant at the rate of Rs.16/- per month and in respect of which a decree for eviction has been passed in favour of respondents-plaintiffs on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity under the provision of Section 13(1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as " the Rent Act").
4. The relevant facts, in brief are that respondents-plaintiffs instituted civil suit for eviction on 18.07.1987, stating inter alia that they have purchased entire House No.199 a
The court established that eviction can be granted based on bona fide necessity when the tenant's claim of occupying multiple rooms is not substantiated by evidence.
The tenant's eviction was justified based on the landlord's bona fide need under the Jharkhand Building Act, despite tenant's claims of hardship.
The importance of substantial questions of law in Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC and the principles of lease termination, landlord's right to possession, and lease termination notice requirement....
Tenancy rights cannot be terminated without due process under the Transfer of Property Act, and eviction must follow legal requirements.
Res Judicata – Rule of res judicata does not strike at root of jurisdiction of Court trying subsequent suit – It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on public policy.
The burden of proof to establish subtenancy is on the landlord, and the court may affirm an eviction decree if the landlord successfully demonstrates the creation of subtenancy.
The requirement of substantial questions of law and the impact of new tenancy acts on ongoing proceedings must be carefully considered by the court.
Point of law: The effect of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC was considered in recording such observations. It was not an instance with reference to application of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC. This claus....
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
