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

1968 Supreme(MP) 6

P.V.Dixit, S.P.Bhargava
N. K. Kame – Appellant
Versus
Biharilal – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
P. R. Naolekar for applicant;
D. L. Jain for non applicant.

ORDER OF REFERENCE

Bhave, J.-

1. This revision petition is by the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff had purchased the suit house under a registered sale-deed dated 7th February 1966 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000. By this sale-deed the right of the vendors to recover the arrears of rent has also been assigned to the plaintiff. On the basis of the title acquired by the plaintiff, he filed the suit for ejectment of the defendant and in that suit also claimed all the arrears of rent dup., that is to say, the arrears assigned to him under the sale-deed and those that became due after his purchase of the property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, seeking a direction of that Court that the defendant be ordered to deposit the arrears due failing which to strike out his defence. The defendant deposited the arrears of rent due from the date of the sale-deed, that is, from 7th February 1966 and claimed that the arrears assigned to the plaintiff were not arrears of rent with respect to the plaintiff and that the defendant was not bound to deposit the same under section 13 of the Accommodation Control












































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