Special Appeal dismissed where tenant-defendant was a defaulter and landlord needed premises for employees. No substantial question of law as parallel findings by lower courts were upheld.
Special Appeal No. 212 of 2014 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A No. 212 of 2014
Rama Kant Das …. …. Appellant(s).
Versus
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
FOR THE APPELLANT(S) : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate
07/16.07.2019
Heard counsel Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, appearing on behalf of the appellant. He argues this case at length. He vehemently argued this appeal on all points. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is directed against the judgment passed in Eviction Appeal No. 6 of 2012 dated 31st July, 2014 by which the appeal preferred by the tenant-defendant against the judgment of eviction was dismissed.
-2-
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the defendants are defaulters under the tenancy agreement.
Whether the landlord reasonably required the premises in good faith for its employees.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rama Kant Das
Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited
Jamshedpur cooperative College
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
