Back
NUPUR BHATI
Subhash Chandra Rathi – Appellant
Versus
Temple Board, Nathdwara – Respondent
ORDER :
(Nupur Bhati, J.)
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the validity of the orders passed by Additional District Judge, Rajsamand ('Trial Court'), whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application(s) preferred by the petitioners under Order 41, Rule 27 (1) and Order 11, Rule 12 read with section 151 CPC.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent Temple Board, Nathdwara preferred an application seeking eviction of the petitioner No.1/tenant from the suit shop No.6 in question situation in an inn ¼/keZ'kkyk½ under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 ('Act of 1964'). In the application, it was inter-alia alleged that the inn ¼/keZ'kkyk½ was in the ownership of the Temple Board and non-applicant No.1/petitioner No.1 was the tenant and the non-application No.2/petitioner No.2, Seth Jamnadas Lallubhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai ('Trust') was authorized agent to collect the rent. When the tenant failed to pay the rent, a notice dated 27.03.2008 was issued by the Temple Board terminating the tenancy. A prayer was thus made that the Temple Board is entitled to get va
The court upheld the rejection of a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for additional evidence, emphasizing that such evidence cannot be introduced to fill gaps in a case.
Ownership issues cannot be adjudicated in eviction suits; certified copies of public documents are admissible as evidence.
Ownership issues cannot be determined in eviction suits, and certified copies of public documents are admissible in evidence.
Point of Law : Provisions of clause (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41CPC. Said rule applies when Court feels that production of any document or examination of any witness is necessary to enable it to pronou....
Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to reviewing the legality of process rather than re-evaluating facts. Eviction upheld for breaches of lease conditions.
Appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC absent due diligence proof or necessity for judgment; must record reasons; erroneous allowance despite negligence and delay....
A single co-owner can initiate eviction proceedings against a tenant without the consent of other co-owners based on agency principles, supporting the maintainability of such petitions.
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
