Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)Popular Automobiles vs N. Veeraswamy on 7 October, 1988
6. Having heard Sri.N.Subba Shastry, learned
counsel appearing for appellants and Sri V.B.Shiva
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent, I am
of the considered view that though defendants have
denied attornment of tenancy and there being no privity
of contract between plaintiff and defendants, said
contention cannot be accepted in view of law laid down
by this Court in case of Popular Automobiles vs.
N.Veeraswamy reported in ILR 1989 KAR 1555.
There is deemed statutory attornment and as such
appellants-defendants cannot contend that there is no
attornment of tenancy undisputedly, notice determining
tenancy came to be issued by plaintiff as per Ex.P-6 and
same has been replied by defendants in Ex.P10.
Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta vs Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul & Ors on 10 April, 1997
Judgment passed by Trial Court would clearly indicate
that while adjudicating the issue, Trial Court has relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of
Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta vs. Vishwanath
Bhikaji Mogul reported in AIR 1987 SC 2437 to arrive
at a conclusion that attornment of tenancy would not be
6
required as it is implied that there is continuation of
tenancy, for rejecting the contention of defendant
regarding non-attornment of tenancy, as a ground to
non suit the plaintiff. I do not find any good ground to
deviate from the finding recorded by the trial court.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1