REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RATANLAL BANSILAL Appellant

V/S

KISHORILAL GOENKA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BRIDGES V. HAWKESWORTH [REFERRED TO]
PERTAP CHUNDER V. MOHINDRANATH [REFERRED TO]
DURGA CHOWDHARIN V. JAWAHIR [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER CO. V. SHARMAN [REFERRED TO]
HERBERT V. SAMUEL FOX AND CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
EASTMAN PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIALS CO. V. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS,DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS [REFERRED TO]
ADDL. C.I.T. V. SURAT ART SILK MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM V. C.I.T. [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA FLOUR MILLS V. C.I.T. [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. C.I.T. [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL V. SHAKSHLON [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM CHAND V. MAUJI SABU [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA MOHAN SAHA V. RAM KUMAR SAHA [REFERRED TO]
DHANNAMAL AND ORS. V. RAI BAHADUR LALA MATISAGAR [REFERRED TO]
SIR CHUNILAL V. MEHTA AND SONS LTD. V. CENTURY SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING CO. [REFERRED TO]
GANGA DUTT MURARKA V. KARTIK CHANDRA DAS [REFERRED TO]
DIL BAGRAI PUNJABI V. SHERAD CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
UDAYAN CHINUBHAI'S CASE [REFERRED TO]
RAMAPPA V. M. BOJJAPPA [REFERRED TO]
DHIRJLAL GIRDHARIAL VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MEHTA PARIKH AND COMPANY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI MILLS LIMITED MADURAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INOOME TAX MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
HOOGHLY JUTE MILLS VS. THEIR EMPLOYEES [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADHYA PRADESH AND BHOPAL SM DAMAYANTI SAHNI PARTNER OF ISHWAR DAS SAHNI AND BROS VS. SODRA DEVI:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
DEITY PATTABHIRAMASWAMY VS. S HANYMAYYA [REFERRED TO]
OMAR SALAY MOHAMED SAIT VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
EAST INDIAN COAL COMPANY LIMITED VS. PARBATI SANKAR MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
TILAYYIL MAINMO VS. KOTTIATH RAMUMI [REFERRED TO]
SAKVATE T B VS. NEMICHAND [REFERRED TO]
KUPPUSWAMI CHETTIAR VS. A S P A ARUMUGAM CHETTIAR ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BIHAR AND ORISSA PATNA VS. S P JAIN [REFERRED TO]
SOLE TRUSTEE LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
SANTA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAM PASRICHA VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
KANTA GOEL VS. B P PATHAK [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHOLARAM VS. AMEERCHAND [REFERRED TO]
K P VARGHESE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER ERNAKULAM [REFERRED TO]
BUDHWANTI VS. GULAB CHAND PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
OM PAL VS. ANAND SWARUP [REFERRED TO]
MITHILESH KUMARI VS. PREM BEHARI KHARE [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ BHARGAVA VS. MOHINDERNATH [REFERRED TO]
CHAND GUPTA VS. GULZAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SINGH VS. NATTHU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
NANALAL GIRDHARLAL VS. GULAMNABI JAMALBHAI MOTORWALA [REFERRED TO]
SURAYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD VS. BIMALENDU NATH SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
PAREKH BROTHERS VS. KARTICK CHANDRA SAHA [REFERRED TO]
BANERJEE AND BANERJEE VS. HINDUSTHAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD [REFERRED TO]
MONO RANJAN DASGUPTA VS. SUCHITRA GANGULY [REFERRED TO]
URMILA BALA DASI VS. PROBODH CHANDRA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
KAIKHUSHROO PIROJSHA GHIARA VS. C P SYNDICATE LTD [REFERRED TO]
GUJRAT GINNING AND MANUFACTURING CO, LTD AHMEDABAD VS. MOTILAL HIRABHAI SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING CO , LTD , AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT BOARD VS. SARAFAT ALI [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH PRASAD SINGH VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PARTABGARH [REFERRED TO]
NAFAR CHANDRA PAL CHOWDHURY VS. SHUKUR SHEIKH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Full Bench References involving interpretation of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended, arise out of two several appeals entertained by a Division Bench of this Court. Each of the said appeals is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Court in first appeal reversing the decree for eviction of the sole defendant-tenant in each of the two several suits decreed by the trial court.

(2.) Kishorilal Goenka, respondent in S.A. No. 354 of 1982 and Satya Narain Goenka, respondent in S.A. No. 355 of 1982 are brothers who had been occupying the second and first floors of the suit property respectively as tenants under separate tenancy.

(3.) There are three plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein. The first plaintiff, a Partnership firm, claims to be the owner of the one-half undivided share of the property and the second plaintiff is the owner of the rest half. Initially, the fast two plaintiffs filed two several suits jointly, for eviction of the respective tenant (the respective respondent) on diverse grounds. The first ground is that they had made unauthorised constructions in the respective parts of the suit property under their tenancy. During the pendency of the suit, the third plaintiff was added and the plaint allowed to be amended because meanwhile the third plaintiff purchased the suit property from the first and second plaintiffs and sought for eviction of the tenants on grounds of reasonable requirements. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence of witnesses and documents passed the decree for eviction finding all the grounds to be valid. The first appeal court, however, reversed the decree on holding that the first plaintiff, the Partnership firm, is not the owner of the one-half share, but the said share was owned by its Partner. Therefore, the notice for eviction was bad. The appeal court also found that the constructions were not unauthorised and were made with consent of the owners. It further held that the third plaintiff viz. Shankara Hall and Shankara Institute of Philosophy and Culture cannot be said to have reasonable requirement to occupy the whole property for the fulfillment of its objects.

Click here to view full judgment.

RATANLAL BANSILAL Vs. KISHORILAL GOENKA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address