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

1953 Supreme(All) 210

MALIK, CHATURVEDI
Sunder Lal – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Ishaq – Respondent


Advocates:
Satish Chandra, for Appellants; A. Banerji, for Respondent.

Judgement

MALIK, CJ. :- These are four special appeals arising out of four suits. But they can be disposed of by one judgment as the point for decision is the same in all the four cases.

2. The plaintiffs, who are the landlords, filed four suits for ejectment, arrears of rent and also for mesne profits on 2-4-1946. These suits were decreed on 30-9-1946. Before filing the suits, notices for ejectment were given on 11-8-1945, and the tenants were required to vacate by 31-8-1945. The plaintiffs had also applied for permission to the District Magistrate and the permission to file the suits had been granted on 28-2-1946.

3. After the decrees, the defendants filed appeals. During the pendency of the appeals, an Ordinance known as U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Ordinance, 1946, (Ordinance No. 3 of 1946), was passed which came into force from 1-10-1946. The Ordinance was replaced by the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (Act No. 3 of 1947), which Act was passed on 31-3-1947, and was made retrospective and was to be deemed to come into force from 1-10-1946. The appeals came up for hearing on 24-1-1947, and though certain objections were taken, in the Court of appeal ba





















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