SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Raj) 388

ARUN MADAN
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ashok Mehta, for Petitioner Manish Sharma, for Non-petitioners

Honble MADAN, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The landlord non-petitioner had filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent against the defendant-petitioner herein. The petitioner-defendant has come up by way of this revision petition against the order dated 22.3.2000 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the said Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court by its order dated 4.9.1999, striking out the petitioners defence against his eviction. There was provisional determination of the rent by the trial Court as per the requirements of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. The rent was determined as Rs. 225/-per month. The defendant had stated that though he had deposited the rent through tender No. 964 with the trial Court as on 25.5.1995 but on enquiry it was found that no such rent was found deposited under such number and the non-petitioner could not locate the particulars. An application for condonation of delay in deposit of said amount for the month of 11.4.95 to 10.5.95 was filed by the petitioner. Immediately on coming to know that the details of such depos











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top