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

1967 Supreme(MP) 41

P.V.DIXIT, S.P.BHARGAVA, R.J.BHAVE
JAGRANI – Appellant
Versus
JORAWAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.L.Halve, B.L.SETH

SHIV DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises from a proceeding under Section 10 of the M P accommodation Control Act. 1961 for assessment of standard rent by increasing it bv 70 per cent The appellant's husband. Mathura Prasad. made an application for fixation of fair rent to the Rent Con-troller in the year 1954 The Rent Controller fixed Rs 22-50 as the fair rent of the suit accommodation. In the present proceedings the appellant claimed an increase by 70 per cent under the provisions ot the M. P. Ac-commodation Control Act, 1961. (section 7), The tenant resisted the application on the ground that no further increase was permissible. The Rent controller allowed the landlord's application and Increased the rent to Rs. 38-25, that is, by 70 per cent the accommodation being non residential. The tenant appealed. The learned District Judge has held that the landlord did not disclose all material facts which would have enabled the Rent Controlling Authority to fix standard rent under Section 7. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controlling Authority. The landlord has preferred this second appeal

( 2 ) IT is common ground that all facts material for t













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