REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KALU KHAN Appellant

V/S

PRAKASH CHANDRA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GOPAL KRISHNAJI KETKAR VS. MOHAMED HAJI LATIF & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SHIV BHAGWAN VIDAY SHANKAR VS. THAKARAMAL & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR LAL & ANR. VS. ASHOK & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND PRASAD VS. BANGALI [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATH VS. RAM PRASAD & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
MEENAL EKNATH KSHIRSAGAR VS. M/S. TRADERS & AGENCIES [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN BAI DAUGHTER OF SHRI RAM CHANDRA VS. MADAN LAL S/O SHRI BHURAIA [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DAS VS. KASTURI DEVI BEGANI [REFERRED TO]
DEENA NATH VS. POORAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
HEERA LAL VS. MANIDR SHRI THAKURJI SANGRIA & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR KHANNA VS. SRI MANISH CHHATWAL [REFERRED TO]
TROJAN AND COMPANY VS. RM N N NAGAPPA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
PRATIVA DEVI VS. T V KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
S J EBENEZER VS. VELAYUDHAN [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI KRISHNA HARDWARE STORES VS. SRINIVASAIAH [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SARUP GUPTA VS. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
RAMKUBAI VS. HAJARIMAL DHOKALCHAND CHANDAK [REFERRED TO]
RAGAVENDRA KUMAR VS. FIRM PREM MACHINARY AND CO [REFERRED TO]
R C TAMRAKAR VS. NIDI LEKHA [REFERRED TO]
SIDDALINGAMMA VS. MAMTHA SHOENOY [REFERRED TO]
JOHN MATHAI ABRRAHAM VS. BRITISH PHYSICAL LAB INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KEMPAIAH VS. LINGAIAH [REFERRED TO]
INDRASEN JAIN VS. RAMESHWARDAS [REFERRED TO]
ABDULA SAMAD MAKHADUM BAKSH SHEIKH VS. SUDHA ANANT PARAKHE [REFERRED TO]
CHHOGALAL VS. BHANWARLAL [REFERRED TO]
SADIQ ALI VS. SAGARMAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the C.P.C." hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2008 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur (for short "the first appellate court" hereinafter) in Civil Appeal Decree No. 26/2007 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jodhpur City (for short "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Civil Original Suit No. 102/2000, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit before the trial Court for eviction of the rented premises and recovery of arrears of rent for use and occupation on the ground that the appellants son Salim Khan wants to start his own business in the shop which is subject matter of the suit and therefore, the plaintiff-appellant requires the premises in question for his reasonable and bonafide use in order to start the business of food grains, edible condiments etc. in the premises in question for which the suit shop is suitable. The respondent-defendant filed the written statement denying the need of the appellant-plaintiff and contested the suit. The trial Court framed as many as 9 issues including the issue of comparative hardship on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity of the suit premises as also on the ground that the respondent-defendant neither tendered nor continuously paid the monthly rent of suit shop for the period more then six months and therefore, defaulted in the payment of rent as also on the ground of material alteration etc.

(3.) While admitting the present appeal, this Court found that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal.

Click here to view full judgment.

KALU KHAN Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address