Back
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J
MD. RAFIUDDIN AHMED – Appellant
Versus
SMTI ANIMA SEN DEKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counterclaim maintenance without a notice under section 11. (Para 3 , 4 , 12 , 20) |
| 2. court affirmed that notice under section 11 is not a requirement for tenants to be evicted. (Para 18 , 29) |
| 3. issuance of notice is surplusage when tenancy has ended. (Para 28 , 31) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. A Ikbal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals. Mr. B Kaushik, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents in both the appeals.
2. Both the appeals arise out of separate judgment and decree both dated 22.08.2019 passed in Title Appeal No.64/2017 and Title appeal No.65/2017 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred to as the learned Appellate Court) whereby the appeals filed by the appellant herein was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Title Suit No.85/2011.
3. It is relevant to take note of that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court by separate orders passed in both the appeals dated 03.02.2020 formulated same
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
