SHIVSHANKAR GURGAR Vs. DILIP
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 03,2014
Shivshankar Gurgar
Appellant
VERSUS
DILIP
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
HUKUMCHAND VS. BANSILAL [REFERRED TO]NAI BAHU VS. LALA RAMNARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
DEEPA BHARGAVA VS. MAHESH BHARGAVA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SALI P G VS. SUNIMOL G MANAPPURATHUMALIYIL HOUSE [LAWS(KER)-2019-10-171] [REFERRED TO]ABDUL RAHIM KHAN VS. TAJ BAGH COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-123] [REFERRED TO]
SHRENIK KUMAR NANDECHA VS. PREETPAL SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH BALASAHEB CHAVAN VS. ANAND RAJU KOPPELLA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LIMITED VS. AKRUTI NIRMAN LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2020-6-82] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD RAFEEQ KHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
AMRAWATI VS. D.D.C. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
NRUPAL NARENDRABHAI DALWADI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2017-5-156] [REFERRED TO]
DECED. BADRILAL THRU. LRS. SATYANARAYAN VS. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-97] [REFERRED TO]
BAKKESWAR SARKAR VS. NEKJAN NECHHA BEWA [LAWS(CAL)-2024-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
AJJU DESHLAHRE VS. RAVINDRA KUMAR NANDA [LAWS(CHH)-2016-11-54] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. MAYA MISRA [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA & ANR VS. KAPANI BROTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2015-12-172] [REFERRED]
BABY RADHIKA GUPTA & ANR VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-374] [REFERRED]
SWASTIK TRADERS VS. BASANT KUMAR MOHTA [LAWS(CHH)-2014-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDU LAL JAIN VS. PRAMOD KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
G. SELVAM AND ORS. VS. KASTHURI AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
ANSHU MALHOTRA VS. MUKESH MALHOTRA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
PARWATI DEVI VS. MAHABIR MAHTO [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-3-101] [REFERRED TO]
MOST. PARWATI DEVI VS. MAHABIR MAHTO [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-3-169] [REFERRED TO]
CENTURY HEATREATS (P) LTD VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(HPH)-2022-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
CHOLAMANDLAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE CO. LTD. VS. NARMADA CHANDRAKAR & OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2016-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
KHATUN AND ORS. VS. ADINATH TEXTILES AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-151] [REFERRED TO]
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. VS. OCEAN MARINE SERVICES COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
AJOY BHUSAN DEB VS. COSMIC NEGOTIATORS LTD. [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
WAQF MUSAMMAT SHARIFAN BIWI VS. DR. PRABHU SARAN RAJVEDI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-77] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVASHANKARGOUDA VS. BAGALKOT UDYOG LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2017-9-113] [REFERRED TO]
RAVAIL CHAND VS. STATE JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2016-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
INDUSIND BANK LIMITED VS. SUNIL KUMAR SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2017-4-134] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. VS. ROYAL HIGHWAY SERVICES [LAWS(MPH)-2015-3-163] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant filed civil suit under section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for eviction of the respondent and recovery of arrears of rent. On 16.4.2002 the suit came to be decreed ex parte. The said decree came to be set-aside on an application filed by the respondent with a direction to file the written statement and also deposit the entire arrears within 30 days in the court.
(3.)On 25.7.2004 a compromise memo signed by both the parties came to be filed under which the respondent acknowledged his liability to pay arrears of rent to the appellant to the tune of Rs.11710/- and also costs quantified to Rs.4000/-. The respondent also agreed to pay the amount within a period of six months. It was also specifically agreed as follows:
"H. If the defendant violates any of the aforesaid conditions, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the vacant possession of suit accommodation from the defendant wherein defendant shall have no objection."
(2.)The appellant filed civil suit under section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for eviction of the respondent and recovery of arrears of rent. On 16.4.2002 the suit came to be decreed ex parte. The said decree came to be set-aside on an application filed by the respondent with a direction to file the written statement and also deposit the entire arrears within 30 days in the court.
(3.)On 25.7.2004 a compromise memo signed by both the parties came to be filed under which the respondent acknowledged his liability to pay arrears of rent to the appellant to the tune of Rs.11710/- and also costs quantified to Rs.4000/-. The respondent also agreed to pay the amount within a period of six months. It was also specifically agreed as follows:
"H. If the defendant violates any of the aforesaid conditions, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the vacant possession of suit accommodation from the defendant wherein defendant shall have no objection."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.