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

1991 Supreme(MP) 210

R.C.LAHOTI
Kishanchand – Appellant
Versus
Ramkrishna – Respondent


Advocates:
D.K. Katare for appellant; U.K. Jain for respondent.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J. -- 1. The defendant/tenant has come up in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court directing his ejectments from the suit accommodation, non-residential one, under section 12 (1) (b) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The scope of the hearing in appeal stands circumscribed, as will be noticed hereafter.

Admittedly, the appellant was a tenant in the suit accommodation owned by the plaintiff/respondent. The trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction. On appeal preferred by the landlord/respondent, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and held that grounds for ejectment, both under clauses (b) and (f) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, were made out on evidence.

3. The appeal was preferred on 2.7.77 However, the decree was already executed and the possession delivered to the plaintiff / respondent on 20-3-77.

4. On 21-8-78, when the appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission, this Court passed a detailed order holding that the finding as to the availability of ground for ejectment under section 12(1) (f) of the Act was not open to challenge. Th
























































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