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

2006 Supreme(MP) 174

U.C.MAHESHWARI
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Lalit Pandey, R.P.AGRAWAL, ROHIT ARYA, Sanjay Lal,

Judgment

( 1. ) THE appellants/defendants preferred this appeal under Section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26-2-2005 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Regular Appeal No. 6-A/03, affirming the judgment and decree under Section 12 (1) (f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the Act) passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal in Civil Original Suit No. 46-A/98, vide dated 30-4-01.

( 2. ) RESPONDENT/plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/appellant on the ground available under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act for non-residential bonafide genuine requirement of respondent No. 3, Mukesh Kumar regarding shop situated at Gujrati Bazar Katra Ward, Sagar as mentioned in the plaint.

( 3. ) WHILE in the written statement by admitting the tenancy, the aforesaid ground for eviction was denied by the appellant. It has also been contended that respondent have various alternative accommodation in their family in the same town. The disputed shop is very small, Le. , 13 x 5 ft. , in which the appellants are running the medical shop, the same is not suitable to the respondents for their alleged need as they w









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