VINEET KOTHARI
Shyam Mahatma – Appellant
Versus
Babu Khan – Respondent
2. The plaintiff respondent sought the eviction of the suit shop on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as personal bonafide need of the plaintiff for his son - Mohd. Sharif for carrying on his business of sale of cattle feed as the market has shops of such nature and defendant himself was carrying on the business of cattle feed.
3. The learned trial court dismissed the suit of plaintiff-landlord on the ground that there was no default in payment of rent as the tenancy was on year to year basis vide Ex.A-1 to A-4 rent receipts produced by the defendant tenant which established the payment of rent on annual basis to the plaintiff and, therefore, the default of six months as required under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act of 1950 was not established. Regarding personal bonafide necessity, the learned trial court fo
Samir Mukherjee vs. Davinder K. Bajaj (AIR 2001 SC 1696 = RLW 2001(2) SC 254) 4
Ashok Kumar vs. Om Prakash (2000(3) R.L.R. 173 = RLW 2000(4) Raj. 155) 5
Chetan Das vs. Annusiya (1995(2) R.L.R. 7 = RLW 1995(2) Raj. 397) 5
Nasiruddin & Ors. vs. Sita Ram Agrawal (2003(1) WLC (SC) 293 = RLW 2003(2) SC 315) 7
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.