REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BHARATH KUMAR JAIN Appellant

V/S

KANTA BEN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

NANDA RAO AND OTHERS V. LAKSHMANASWAMI MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
K.RAMACHANDRAN CHETTIAR V. G.LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMI CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
S.N.VENKATARAMA REDDIAR V. ABDUL GHANI ROWTHER [REFERRED TO]
THOTTAL MORTHEMMAL NAIDU V. KATTIKOLLAN EDAVALATH AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
F.MOHANLAL V. S.N.THIRUMALAI CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE MARWAH V. SAMUNDRI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
P. MOHANLAL V. S.N.THIRUMALAI CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
K.V.NAYAK V. MRS.CHANDRA DEVASAGAYAM [REFERRED TO]
S.N. KABA V. P.P.I. VAITHYANATHAN [REFERRED TO]
A.K.GUPTA AND SONS LTD.,V. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION AND CONCLUDED [REFERRED TO]
S.N. KABA V. P.P.I. VAITHYANATHAN [REFERRED TO]
P.RUKMANI V. R.NARAYANI AND SIX OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
B V PATANKAR VS. C G SASTRY [REFERRED TO]
FIRM AMAR NATH BASHESHAR DASS VS. TEK CHAND [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH GUPTA GOPAL KRISHNA ANDLEY SATYA NARAYAN SURESH CHAND VS. DIG VIJENDRAPAL GUPTA:VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR:IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE JALAUN:GULAM GHISTI [REFERRED TO]
MOTOR GENERAL TRADERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VINEET KUMAR VS. MANGAL SAIN WADHERA [REFERRED TO]
NANO KISHORE MARWAH VS. SAMUNDRI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA VS. III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [REFERRED TO]
A KRISHNASWAMI VS. S RASHEEDA [REFERRED TO]
ARUNACHALAM VS. KESAVAN CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
NATESAN PILLAI VS. SETHUMANI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision has been preferred against the fair and decretal order dated 31. 3. 1997 in E. A. No. 827 of 1997 in E. P. No. 1721 of 1996 in O. S. No. 5485 of 1994 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court , Madras. THE respondent is the owner of the premises bearing door No. 71, Mulla Sahab Street , Chennai. He let out the house and premises, being flat situated in the left hand side in the ground floor of the said premises bearing door No. 71 to the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of rs. 1800 for residential purpose on and from 1. 9. 1989.

(2.) THE respondent instituted O. S. No. 5485 of 1994 for recovery of possession and for recovery of Rs. 18,000 being arrears of rent due for the period commencing from May, 1993 to February, 1994. THE suit was presented on 10. 3. 1994. THE petitioner herein, though served with the suit summons, absented himself and the trial Court passed an ex parte decree on 12th October, 1995 , directing the defendant in the suit to pay Rs. 18,000, together with interest at 6% per annum, to deliver vacant possession of the suit property and to pay Rs. 4,470-50 towards the cost.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner stressed on the said legal contentions and tried to sustain the same by relying upon the various pronouncements of this Court as well as of the Apex Court. In so far as the findings with respect to the date of institution of the suit and the date on which the period of exemption in terms of Section 30 lapses, are not in dispute and it is also not open to the petitioner to challenge the same.

Click here to view full judgment.

BHARATH KUMAR JAIN Vs. KANTA BEN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address