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

1963 Supreme(MP) 115

SHIV DAYAL
BABU BHAI HABIB BHAI – Appellant
Versus
BHAGWANDAS JAGANNATH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.L.SETH, G.P.SINGH

SHIV DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) A decree for ejectment has been passed against the appellant on the ground that he committed default in payment of arrears of rent in spite of notice within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955, (hereinafter called the Act ). It is urged for the appellant that the arrears of rent which fell due before the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property could not be called arrears of rent within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Act.

( 2 ) MATERIAL facts are that on 24 August 1959 the suit house was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent. On 28th August 1959, he gave a notice to the appellant and on 10 October 1959, he instituted the suit. As the notice was given within four days of his purchasing the property, it could not be said that any rent had fallen due to him. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had to pay Rs. 20/- as arrears of rent to Ramdayal and Rs. 20/- to Deshraj, his predeccssors-in-title and the said Ramdayal and Deshraj authorised the plaintiff in writing to recover the arrears of rent. These writings are Ex. P-4, dated 28 August 1959, and Ex. P-5, dated 30 August 1959 respectively.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to










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