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

2003 Supreme(All) 176

N.K.MEHROTRA
CHHEDI RAM – Appellant
Versus
OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.Mirza, T.K.Sharma

N. K. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act against the order dated 9. 5. 1995 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bahraich, allowing the application of the plaintiff for striking off defence in S. C. C. Suit No. 7 of 1988,

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit for eviction after determination of the lease of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages with the allegations that there was an agreement between the parties and the defendant had paid Rs. 3,000 as an advance and the shop in question was let out at the rate of 300 per month for a period of five years. The advance amount was to be adjusted in the rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month and Rs. 250 per month was to be paid every month as rent. The defendant had adjusted the advance amount during the period from 1. 8. 1980 to 1. 8. 1985 but the shop was not vacated. According to the agreement again an agreement was entered between the parties for a period of five years from 1. 8. 1985. At this time Rs. 15,000 was taken as an advance of rent. The rent was paid upto 15. 8. 198











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