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

1990 Supreme(MP) 44

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
BAIJNATH PRASAD SAIN – Appellant
Versus
DAYA SHANKER SAIN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.L.Adme, R.L.SVARNAKAR, S.C.JAIN

D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision under S. 23e of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act), by the tenant. The parties are real brothers. The suit accommodation is house No. 1486 Napier Town, Jabalpur and is a residential accommodation.

( 2 ) THE admitted facts are that the applicant retired from government service in April, 1983. By a deed of gift executed on 30-8-1983, the suit accommodation was acquired by transfer by the non-applicant landlord from his mother. The present application for eviction was filed before the Rent Controlling Authority (in short 'the Authority') on 5-9-1984. The need set up was bona fide need for residence. Another tenanted portion adjoining the suit accommodation was occupied by other tenant (called portion of Sarkar) against whom also the present landlord filed proceedings for eviction and in fact obtained a decree.

( 3 ) THE counsel appearing for the tenant before me firstly submitted that the application at the instance of the present landlord was not competent before the Authority because he did not fall in the category of specified landlord under S. 23-J of the Act. Explaining the above submission, the learned co










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