PANKAJ MITHAL
MUNNI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
SONA DEVI – Respondent
Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri K.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1.
2. Petitioner is the owner and landlord of house No. 1167/16A (Old) present No. 1244/3, situate in Gondu Ka Hata, Civil Line, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi.
3. Petitioner has purchased the aforesaid house vide sale-deed dated 22.4.1992 and had given information of the said purchase to the sitting tenant respondent No. 1 vide notice dated 28.5.1992 which was replied on 2.6.1992. Despite the above, respondent No. 1 started depositing rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that there is a bona fide doubt as to the person entitle to receive rent.
4. Petitioner vide notice dated 22.1.01 demanded the arrears of rent and determined the tenancy of the respondent No. 1. When the respondent No. 1 failed to tender rent despite notice, petitioner instituted a suit in the small causes Court for arrears of rent and eviction of respondent No. 1on the basis of the aforesaid notice. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner herself has not entered the witness box ei
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.