Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)Sri Avinash Lala Chandani vs Sri P A Niranjan on 20 January, 2015
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has
filed the present revision petition. The learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that the ejectment, which is based on the
Will and Codicil must have been proved before a competent
Court or it must have been declared to be valid in accordance
with law and thereafter, the landlord could have instituted suit
of ejectment for eviction. He also contended that there was no
relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and
the respondent and therefore, in view of law laid down by this
Court in ILR 2015 KARNATAKA 3443 (Sri Avinash Lal
Chandani and others Vs. Sri P.A. Niranjan and others), the
7 CRP No.254/2018
said question ought to have been decided by the Civil Court. He
contended that the approach adopted by the Trial Court was
without proper application of mind to the facts and
circumstances of the case and termination of the tenancy was
not in accordance with law. He therefore submitted that the
Trial Court was not justified in ordering eviction of the petitioner.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1