Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Smt Sarla Devi Gupta vs Smt Tara Devi Dubey on 3 July, 2007

Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009

Reliance was placed on Smt. Sarla Devi Gupta vs. Smt. Tara Devi Dubey, 2007 (3) C.G.L.J. 88. (8) On the other hand, Shri Abhijeet Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argued in support of the impugned judgment and decree and urged that the respondent/plaintiff had proved the notice dated 23-04-1984 Ex.P-6 given by his brothers which would go to show that the respondent/plaintiff was asked to vacate the joint family residence and also the garage where he was carrying on his gas-welding business. It was further urged that the suit was instituted on 17-07-1984 and the amendment sought by the appellant/defendant revealed that the accommodation on vacation by Manharan Singh Thakur, a tenant in April- May, 1983, the respondent/plaintiff had let out that accommodation in January, 1984. It was urged that the notice to vacate the joint family residence was given by the brothers of the respondent/plaintiff on 23-04- 1984, i.e., much after the respondent/plaintiff had let out the abovementioned accommodation to Hariram in January, 1984. In a suit for eviction, the respondent/plaintiff was required to establish bona fide requirement on the date of the suit, therefore, the lower appellate Court was wholly justified in rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellant/defendant.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D Deshmukh - Full Document

Laxman Rao Meshram vs Meena Bai on 8 April, 2008

(6) Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant urged that the respondents/plaintiffs had failed to prove that Shridhar, for whose bona fide requirement the eviction was sought, was the owner of the suit accommodation. It was also argued that since in paragraph 6 of the plaint, the eviction of the appellant/defendant from the suit accommodation let out solely for residential purpose was sought for a composite need, i.e., residential as well as non- residential, a decree under Section 12(1)(e) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth `the Act') could not be passed against the appellant/defendant because Section 12(1)(e) of the Act did not permit eviction of a tenant from an accommodation let out solely for residential purpose on the ground of non-residential requirement. Reliance was placed on Miss S. Sanyal vs. Gian Chand, AIR 1968 SC 438, Smt. Sarla Devi Gupta vs. Smt. Tara Devi Dubey, 2007 (3) CGLJ 88, Prem Naryan Barchhiha vs. Hakimuddin Saifi, 1999 (2) JLJ 260 (SC), Shankar Lal vs. Babulal & Ors., 1999 (II) MPJR 241 and Sheela and others vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, AIR 2002 SC 1264.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - D Deshmukh - Full Document
1