Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)Mohanlal vs Lakhekhan on 5 October, 1972
In Mohanlal Vs. Lakhekhan (supra), the Rajasthan
High Court has observed that even after striking off the defence,
the plaintiff has to prove his averment to entitle him of a decree
for eviction.
Smt. Manak Bai And Ors. vs Kalyan Bux on 5 September, 1988
10. Smt.Manak Bai & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Bux (supra) was
a case where the High Court held that if the tenant acts in any of
the modes provided under sub-section (3) of Section 19A, he can
escape liability from eviction on the ground of default in payment
(5 of 8)
[CSA-161/2016]
of rent under Section 13, in view of sub-section (4) of Section 19A
of the Act.
B.B. Bhalla vs Rameshwar Krishore Badhwar on 12 March, 2001
In B.B.Bhalla Vs. Rameshwar Kishore Badhwar
(supra), the Court observed that it was incumbent upon the
plaintiff/landlord to lead the evidence that the defendant/tenant
had neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him
for six months and he was a defaulter. It has been further
observed that even if the evidence of the tenant has been struck
off, it was necessary for the plaintiff to establish his case by
adducing evidence that the defendant was a defaulter.
Section 13 in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
1