REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Prem Bahadur Dalela Appellant

V/S

Umeshraj Bali Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SMT. SONA DEVI V. DISTRICT JUDGE,BASTI [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR V. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR BANERJI V. RAMSHASHI ROY [REFERRED TO]
JANKIRAM NARHARI V. DAMODHAR RAMCHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA BHARAT HIGH COURT IN TEKCHAND DEVIDAS V. GULAB CHAND CHANDAN MAI [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKAR VS. RAO GIRDHARI LAL CHODHURY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MOHAMMAD NAZIM [REFERRED TO]
HARCHARAN SINGH VS. SHIVRANI [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. ATMARAM SUNGOMAL POSHANI [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. NANAK CHANDRA VERMA [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SINGH VS. NATTHU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BASANT SINGH VS. ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION [REFERRED TO]
MUNDRI LAL VS. SUSHILA RANI [REFERRED TO]
SAMITTRI DEVI VS. SAMPURAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PARIMAL VS. VEENA ALIAS BHARTI [REFERRED TO]
GANGA RAM VS. PHULWATI [REFERRED TO]
SHIV DUTT SINGH VS. RAM DASS [REFERRED TO]
JHABUL RAM VS. DISTRICT JUDGE BALLIA [REFERRED TO]
NOOR MOHAMMAD VS. XITH ADDL DISTT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR [REFERRED TO]
SUKUMAR GUHA VS. NARESH CHANDRA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
VAMAN VITHAL KULKARNI VS. KHANDERAO RAMRAO SHOLAPURKAR [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMARI VS. 4TH ADDITIONAL, DISTICT JUDGE [REFERRED TO]
Asa Ram VS. Ravi Prakash [REFERRED TO]
UGRASEN VS. PARMESHWARI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN VS. RAM LAL(DEAD) THR. LRS & ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) The instant SCC Revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts' Act, being aggrieved against the judgment dated 07.05.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow (acting as SCC Court) in SCC Suit No. 18 of 1999 by means of which the suit of the opposite parties has been decreed.

(3.) Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi has challenged the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2015 primarliy on the ground that the notice for termination of tenancy dated 16.03.1999 which is alleged to have been served on the revisionist by refusal, has wrongly been held to be served , inasmuch, as there was clear evidence to the effect that on the alleged date when the said notice is said to have been refused by the revisionist and was addressed at Lucknow but at the given time he was on his posting at Hardoi and accordingly the presumption which has been drawn is incorrect which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The second ground raised by Sri Tripathi is that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month which has erroneously been held by the Trial Court to be Rs. 600/-, whereas there was enough material on record including the statement of the opposite party no. 1 which indicated that he had no material to prove that the rate of rent was Rs. 600/- per month and despite the said statement, the Court below has ignored the same and has upheld the rate of rent to be Rs. 600/- which is erroneous. Another ground has been raised though feebly argued that the opposite party no. 1 is not the owner-landlord rather the original landlord was one Sri K.N. Mathur and upon his death one Smt. Veena Srivastava had claimed title over the property in question.

Click here to view full judgment.

PREM BAHADUR DALELA Vs. UMESHRAJ BALI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address