P.C.TATIA
Kedar Lal – Appellant
Versus
LRs. of Ram Dayal – Respondent
(2). Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-landlords filed the suit for eviction of their tenant deceased Ram Dayal on 19.3.1974. The plaintiffs sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of their personal bona fide need. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. in the trial court on 14.1.1986 and submitted that before few years, the defendant has materially altered the suit premises and that fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only on 29.12.1985, therefore, the plaintiffs want to incorporate another ground for eviction of the tenant and that is material alteration in the suit premises. The amendment was allowed by the trial court and the amended plaint was filed. The suit for eviction of the plaintiffs against the defendant, therefore, was on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the plaintiffs and on the ground of material alteration in the suit premises by the tenant.
Om Prakash vs. Amar Singh and anr. (AIR 1987 SC 617)–Followed. 13
Raminder Singh Sethi vs. D. Vijayarangam (AIR 2002 SC 2087) 14
L.R. Of Mishrimal vs. L.Rs. of Sukh Lal & ors. (2006(2) DNJ 1117) = 2006(4) RLW 2890 9
Dwarkadass vs. Narayan Dass (2007(1) RLW 446) 9
Chiman Lal and anr. vs. Narendra Kumar (1995(2) RLW 415) 9
Smt. Usha and anr. vs. Sukhsampat Mal (1995(2) RLW 14) 9
Smt. Supyar Bai vs. Smt. Gordhan Bai through her Legal Representatives (1992(1) WLC 590) 13
Jamandass vs. Gokuldass (1983 RLW 565) 14
Khem Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and another (1999(2) RLW Raj. 908) 31
Brij Mohan & anr. vs. Bhanwari Devi & ors. (2006(3) RLR 108) = (2006(2) RLW 1541) 31
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.