VASANT GANESH DAMLE Vs. SHRIKANT TRIMBAK DATAR
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-44
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 05,2002
VASANT GANESH DAMLE
Appellant
VERSUS
SHRIKANT TRIMBAK DATAR
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
MOHMMED SABIR IBRAHIM BYAVARWALA VS. YUSUFBHAI NOORMOHMMED JODHPURWALA [LAWS(GJH)-2013-9-185] [REFERRED TO]SHAM KAPOOR VS. SURAJ PRAKAS KAPOOR [LAWS(DLH)-2004-3-89] [REFERRED TO]
RITA BHATTACHARJEE VS. JYOTIRMOY MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2009-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
RANA CHILLER PVT. LIMITED VS. NATIONAL HORTICULTURE BOARD (NHB) [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-149] [REFERRED TO]
GAIND LAL SON OF SUKHRAM SAHU VS. PREMLAL SON OF MANBODHI KANWAR [LAWS(CHH)-2016-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
HARESH PANCHAL VS. LEELA CHANDRAKANT NAIK [LAWS(BOM)-2024-9-76] [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD VS. JADAVPUR TEA COMPANY LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2011-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
GYANWATI VS. SARSETI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2024-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
YUSUFBHAI NOORMOHAMMED JODHPURWALA VS. MOHAMED SABIR IBRAHIM BYAVARWALA [LAWS(SC)-2014-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
SOMCHAND MANCHARAM VS. KHIMCHAND MAGANLAL [LAWS(GJH)-2010-10-153] [REFERRED TO]
ANISH FULARA VS. DEVCHARAN [LAWS(CHH)-2013-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH RAMTEKE, S/O SHRI CHHEDILAL RAMTEKE VS. PUSHPALATA RAMTEKE [LAWS(CHH)-2016-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
BHASKAR BHAGWANT SHINDE VS. VASUDHA MADHUKAR KADAM [LAWS(BOM)-2005-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
HASMUKHBHAI SAGAALCHAND ACHARYA VS. DADAMBEN HEMTAJI RATHOD [LAWS(GJH)-2023-7-1487] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBHAU G KPSHIRE VS. SARDARSHINGH R TURE [LAWS(BOM)-2013-6-129] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL STEEL ENTERPRISES LTD VS. CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2010-3-116] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHADBEGAM UNUS INAMDAR VS. AMINASAHEB BANDGISAHEB MOKASHI [LAWS(BOM)-2002-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
RAM HAZOOR VS. SHYAM DULAREY & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-140] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Sethi, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant-tenant was sought to be evicted from the leased premises on the ground of defaults in making the payment of the rent. The suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the respondents-plaintiffs had failed to establish that they were the landlords of the appellant. The respondents-landlords preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which was allowed by reversing the findings of the trial Court in so far as the relationship of landlord and tenant was concerned. The appellant was held to be the tenant of the respondents. The appellate Court further found that as the appellant-tenant had defaulted in payment of rent, he was liable to be evicted from the leased premises. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court, the appellant approached the High Court by way of a writ petition which was dismissed vide the order impugned in this appeal.
(3.)Mr. U. U. Lalit, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly conceded before us that in view of the fact that the appellant himself prayed for deposit of rent to avail the benefit of S. 12(3) of the Act, the appellate Court rightly held that he was the tenant of the landlords.
(2.)The appellant-tenant was sought to be evicted from the leased premises on the ground of defaults in making the payment of the rent. The suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the respondents-plaintiffs had failed to establish that they were the landlords of the appellant. The respondents-landlords preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which was allowed by reversing the findings of the trial Court in so far as the relationship of landlord and tenant was concerned. The appellant was held to be the tenant of the respondents. The appellate Court further found that as the appellant-tenant had defaulted in payment of rent, he was liable to be evicted from the leased premises. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court, the appellant approached the High Court by way of a writ petition which was dismissed vide the order impugned in this appeal.
(3.)Mr. U. U. Lalit, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly conceded before us that in view of the fact that the appellant himself prayed for deposit of rent to avail the benefit of S. 12(3) of the Act, the appellate Court rightly held that he was the tenant of the landlords.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.