BAPNA
Seth Rajmal – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Krishan Swaroop – Respondent
2. The appellant landlord instituted a suit for ejectment on 16th October, 1951, on the ground that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide for the use of the landlord. He claimed arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 125/- and Rs. 32/- on account of damages at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day on the expiry of the time-limit contained in the notice to quit. The suit was contested by the defendant on a plea that no certificate from the Rent Controller had been obtained prior to the institution of the suit. as required by sec. 14(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 195)). He denied that the premises were required by the landlord reasonably and bona fide for his own use and further he questioned the validity of the notice to quit. The trial court, after evidence found that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide by the plaintiff for his own purposes, that the notice to quit was a valid notice, and that the pre-requisite condition of obtaining a certificate from the Rent Controller had been done away with by a subsequent amendmen
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.