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

JAWAD RAHIM
Ramakrishna – Appellant
Versus
Ayesha Mohiddin – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Smt. T.G. Sudha and Smt. Hayalakshmi V., Advocates.

ORDER

Jawad Rahim, J.—This revision is against the order of eviction dated 31.5.2010 in HRC No. 95 of 2006 on the file of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The factual matrix surfacing from the material on record is:

(a) Smt. Ayesha Mohiddin, the respondent herein, sought eviction of the petitioner invoking the provisions of clauses (a), (e) and (r) of Section 27(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for brevity), on the premise she is the absolute owner of premises bearing No. 57/1, situate at 6th Cross, 5th Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560 018, in occupation of the petitioner herein, having acquired it by an indenture of sale dated 25.6.2002 from her grandmother Lingamma. Since then she has been exercising right of ownership.

(b) According to her, petitioner was inducted as tenant in the premises in question by her predecessor-in-title on a monthly rent of Rs.500 p.m. and premium deposit of Rs.30,000 refundable on termination of tenancy. He is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and had fallen in arrears, but had not quantified the amount.

(c) She further averred the buildin














































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