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

1975 Supreme(MP) 68

SHIV DAYAL
BACHCHOOBHAI – Appellant
Versus
PREMANAND BHIOGADHE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.G.PATHAK, Ravindra Kumar Verma

SHIV DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) PREMANAND (respondent) has instituted a suit against Bachchoobhai (revision-petitioner) for eviction under Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). Under Section 13 (1) of the act, the tenant was required to deposit rent on the dates specified therein. He did not deposit rent within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him as required by the first part of Section 13 (1), Further, he did not regularly comply with the second part of Section 13 (J), He did not apply for extension of time. He did not raise any dispute within the meaning of Section 13 (2) within that one month. He was served with the writ of summons on July, 1, 1973. 11 was only in the written statement, which he filed on January 7, 1974, that he raised a dispute about the amount, of arrears of rent due by him.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the following sums were due by the defendant:--Rs. 1626/- as rent from 12-9-67 to 11-3-72 at Rs. 37 per month. Rs. 550/ as damages from 12-3-72 to the date of the suit at Rs. 50/- per month. In the written statement, the following payments were alleged: -28-7-1971 Rent from June to November 1970.













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