DAVE, WANCHOO
Durgaprasad – Appellant
Versus
Hiralal – Respondent
2. The facts, which have led to this application, may be briefly narrated in order to understand the point which has been pressed on behalf of applicant. The case relates to two shops, of which the applicant is the landlord and Hiralal is the tenant. Hiralal made an application to the Controller after the coming into force of the Matsya Ordinance for fixation of fair rent of the two shops, which he was holding from the applicant. The Controller dismissed the application for reasons which need not be mentioned here. Hiralal then went in appeal under section 10 of the Matsya Ordinance to the District Judge, as that Officer had been designated as appellate authority for the purpose of that section. The District Judge reversed the order of the Controller and fixed the rent at Rs. 18/12/- per month as against the contractual rent of Rs. 80/- per month. It is against this order of the District Judge that the present app
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.