REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KISHANCHAND S/O LAVVURAM PUNJABI Appellant

V/S

RAMKRISHNA S/O PURUSHOTTAMDAS VAISHYA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAM KIRPAL V. RUP KUARI [REFERRED TO]
TARABAI V. KUBRA BAI [REFERRED TO]
ONKARLAL V. FIRM RAMBHAJAN RAMNIWAS [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEO CHUNNILAL V. GENDALAL SALUKCHAND AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJADHIRAJ SIR RAMESHWAR SINGH BAHADUR V. HITENDRA SINGH AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
LINGAYYA AYYAYARA V. KANDULA GANGIAH AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SINGH VS. MOHINDRA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU VS. MOTOR AND GENERAL TRADERS [REFERRED TO]
SUKHRANI DEAD VS. HARI SHANKER [REFERRED TO]
HASMAT RAI VS. RAGHUNATH PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
SYED ASADULLAH KAZMI VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
VARIETY EMPORIUM VS. V R M MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM NAINA [REFERRED TO]
KEHAR SINGH VS. YASH PAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant/tenant has come up in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court directing his ejectment from the suit accommodation, non-residential one, under Section 12 (1) (b) and (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The scope of the hearing in appeal stands circumscribed, as will be noticed hereafter.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the appellant was a tenant in the suit accommodation owned by the plaintiff/respondent. The trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction. On appeal preferred by the landlord/respondent, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and held that grounds for ejectment, both under Clauses (b) and (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, were made out on evidence.

(3.) THE appeal was preferred on 2-7-1977. However, the decree was already executed and the possession delivered to the plaintiff/respondent on 20-3-1977.

Click here to view full judgment.

KISHANCHAND LAVVURAM PUNJABI Vs. RAMKRISHNA PURUSHOTTAMDAS VAISHYA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address