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

2001 Supreme(MP) 385

D.P.MOHAPATRA, UMESH C.BANERJEE
Deenanath – Appellant
Versus
Pooranlal – Respondent


Advocates:
K.N. Shukla and Shiv Sagar Tiwari for appellant; H.S. Parihar and
Kuldeep S. Parihar for respondent.

JUDGMENT

Mohapatra, J. -- 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal filed by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 81 of 1998 in which the Court set aside the concurrent judgments of the Court below and dismissed the suit. The appellant, who is the landlord of the suit premises filed Civil Suit No. 4A of 1992 in the Court of the First Civil Judge, Class I, Hoshangabad seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on the grounds of default and bona fide requirement under sections l2 (1) (a) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") respectively.

3. The suit premises is one of the five shop rooms on the ground floor of the building owned by the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that he needs the shop room in occupation of the defendant for the purpose of opening a new shop for his son Pradeep Kumar Gupta. .

4. The defendant refuted both the grounds taken in support of the plea for his eviction. He. denied that he was in arrears of rent and also that the landlord had any bona fide need for the premises. The defendant further pleaded that one other shop room which was pr




























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