Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)
Shridhar Keshav Berde, Thr. C.A. Sandip ... vs Ranjeetmal Jasaraj Oswal (Since Dec.) ... on 18 March, 2024 cites

Vasantrao Gudacharva Jahagirdar vs Sharanbasappa Vishwanath Halli on 12 October, 2007

(g) or clause (i) of Section 16(1) will depend upon pleadings raised by Plaintiff, evidence produced by him and findings recorded by the Court while passing decree for eviction. Therefore, reliance of Mr. Kantharia on denial in written statement of contention raised by Plaintiff in paragraph No.5 is totally irrelevant. It therefore cannot be contended that the Defendant did not raise the issue before the Trial Court. In fact, raising of the issue about the exact clause under which eviction was sought was not even required to be raised by Defendant. It was for Page No.9 of 18 18 March 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2024 15:25:51 ::: kishor CRA 420 of 2023.dox.docx the Trial Court to decide whether it was passing decree under clause (g) or clause (i) of Section 16(1). The exact ground on which decree of eviction is passed became ultimately clear only when the suit was decreed by the Trial Court. In his Appeal memo Applicant specifically raised ground of clause 16(1)(i) and that his eviction was sought solely for the purpose of construction of new premises by demolishing House bearing No.2481. It therefore cannot be contended that Applicant is seeking to raise a new ground for the first time in Revision filed under Section 115 of the Code. Therefore, reliance of Mr. Kantharia on the Judgments of Vasantrao Gudacharva Jahagirdar, Food Corporation of India, ABL International Ltd. and Madan Mohan Kotal (supra) is totally misplaced.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S A Bobde - Full Document
1