R.C.LAHOTI
Kishanchand – Appellant
Versus
Ramkrishna – Respondent
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
1. M/s. Variety Emporium v. R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim = (AIR 1985 SC 207)
2. Hasmatirai v. Raghunath Prasad = (AIR 1981 SC 1711)
3. P. Vyankateshwar v. Motor and General Traders = (AIR 1975 SC 1409)
6. Baburam v. A.D. Dehradun = (AIR 1983 All 170 - DB)
11. Smt. Sukhrani v. Hari Shanker and Others = (AIR 1979 S.C. 1436)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.