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

1969 Supreme(MP) 63

G.P.SINGH, K.L.PANDEY, B.DAYAL
FIRM, RATANCHAND DARBARILAL, SATNA – Appellant
Versus
RAJENDRA KUMAR KHOOBCHAND – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.L.SETH, K.N.AGRAWAL

SINGH J.

( 1 ) THE questions of law referred to the Full Bench are:

" (1) Where the landlord's suit under Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is dismissed and he prefers an appeal, is such appeal governed by Section 13 of the Act? (2) Where a decree for ejectment is passed against the tenant on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12 of the Act, and the tenant prefers an appeal from that decree, is such appeal governed by Section 13 of the Act?"

( 2 ) THE Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, which repealed and replaced the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, according to its long title is "an Act to provide for the regulation and control of letting and rent of accommodation and the eviction of the tenants therefrom," Restriction on eviction of tenants is imposed by Section 12 which enacts that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (b) of Sub-section (1), Then follows Section 13, which has given rise to this reference. The section is worded as follows:

"se










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