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

1964 Supreme(All) 74

S.S.DHAVAN
Roshan – Appellant
Versus
Purshottam Lal – Respondent


Advocates:
H. N. Seth, for Appellant; R. D. Anand, for Respondent.

Judgement

JUDGEMENT :- This is a tenant's second appeal from the decree of the Ist Additional Civil Judge Agra confirming the decree for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent from him. The appellants were joint tenants of the accommodation in dispute and fell into arrears of rent. The landlord served a notice which has become familiar in this State as a combined notice of demand under S. 3(1)(a) of the U.P. control of Rent and Eviction Act and termination of tenancy under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice itself was addressed to both the tenants (the assailants before me) but the envelope was addressed to one of them. He refused to accept it and it was returned by the post-office to the landlord who then filed the present suit for ejectment and recovery of rent.

2. The Defendants resisted the suit and denied that they had made any default in payment of rent. They also placed that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid.

3. The courts below disbelieved the defendants story that they had paid rent and rejected the plea that the notice was invalid. They have come to this Court in second appeal.

4. Only one argument was advanced in support of this appeal -







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