SUJOY PAUL
Sunil Singh – Appellant
Versus
Meenakashi Nema – Respondent
Sujoy Paul, J.
This civil revision filed under section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenges the legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the Prescribed Rent Control Authority (R.C.A.) dated 8-5-2015.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the non applicant filed an application under sections 18 and 20 of the M.P. Parisar Kirayedari Adhiniyam, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) before the Rent Controlling Authority, Satna for eviction of the applicant and for recovery of arrears of rent. This is not in dispute between the parties that a tenancy agreement dated 6-7-2000 was executed between the husband of non applicant and the applicant. Accordingly, a shop was allotted to the applicant for an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month. The applicant is running the shop in the name of Parul Agency from the said rented shop.
3. The applicant filed written statement and controverted the allegations of application filed under section 18 and 20 of the Adhiniyam. The Court below after hearing the parties allowed the application of non-applicant and directed the applicant to vacate
Avinash Gaikwad and others v. State of Maharashtra and others
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited and others
Challamane Huchha Gowda v. M. R. Tirumala and another
Chandra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan and another
Gomti Bai Tamrakar and others v. State of M.P. and others
K. K. Parmar v. H. C. of Gujarat
Kailash Chandra and others v. Dr. Kamla w/o Chintaman Chaudhary
Nagda Municipality v. ITC Limited
Praveen Kumar v. Raghunath s/o Jagannath Ghorse and another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.