Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Ramachandra Bhat vs Rao Talithaya on 8 August, 1985

Dynamatic Hydraulics Ltd. vs Dr. N.K. Bhagwan on 8 January, 1993

In RAMACHANDRA BHAT v. RAO TALITHAYA, this Court while considering the question whether eviction petition filed before expiry of two months period from the date of service of statutory notice was maintainable, held that the cause of action not having arisen as on the date of presentation of the petition under Section 21 (1) of the Act, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, the eviction petition filed even before the expiry of the statutory period cannot be considered to be maintainable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Mrs. Lucy Banilda Rebellow on 10 August, 1998

(emphasis supplied) 16.3. This court had occasion to examine the requirements of notice under Section 21(1)(a) in RAMACHANDRA BHAT v. RAO THALITHAYA, . The landlord therein relied on a notice of demand which did not give the description of the property except giving the door number. Further, the door number that was given in the notice, was not correct. The Court held that the mistake in regard to the door number could have been overlooked if the description of the premises let out was contained in the notice. But, as the notice did not contain the description of the premises apart from the door number which was also erroneous and as it was not possible to identify the schedule premises from the notice it was held that the notice was no a sufficient notice under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs Mrs. Lucy Banilda Rebello (Nee Pais) on 10 August, 1998

(emphasis supplied) 16.3 This Court had occasion to examine the requirements of notice under Section 21(1)(a) in Ramachandra Bhat v Rao Talithaya. The landlord therein relied on a notice of demand which did not give the description of the property except giving the door number. Further, the door number that was given in the notice, was not correct. The Court held that the mistake in regard to the door number could have been overlooked if the description of the premises let out was contained in the notice. But, as the notice did not contain the description of the premises apart from the door number which was also erroneous and as it was not possible to identify the schedule premises from the notice it was held that the notice was not a sufficient notice under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1