Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
9 judgments · newest first · showing 1–9
The petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous application challenging an order that allowed the defendant to amend his written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC in an eviction suit. The petitioner argued that the amendment admitted tenancy but contested the plaintiff's claim of absolute …
The petitioners, tenants of two commercial shops in a building owned by the respondents, challenged an eviction decree dated 29‑03‑2023 that ordered them to vacate within 60 days. The respondents, a co‑owner of the property, claimed bona‑fide personal necessity to use the premises for a showroom …
The petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous application seeking a direction for the early disposal of Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2007, which was pending before the Munsif‑III Court, Bhojpur. The petitioner argued that the evidence had been closed, the case was long fixed for argument, and the respondent …
The appellants, Bibi Zafira Khatoon and her late husband, obtained an eviction decree against respondent No.2 (Mohammed Manzurool Haque) on grounds of bonafide need and rent default. Respondent No.1 (Mohammed Hussain), who was a buyer under a disputed sale agreement, was impleaded as an intervenor …
The landlord filed an eviction suit on 5 September 1994 under Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, alleging the tenant’s default in rent for months that fell more than three years before the suit. The tenant contended that the suit was barred because …
The appellant, a widow who had undergone a kidney transplant, filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, alleging that the respondent, her employee, occupied the premises as a tenant and was in arrears. The respondent sought leave …
The appellants, tenants, were ordered to vacate premises under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. After the trial decree and a dismissed first appeal, they filed a second appeal in the Patna High Court, but neither they nor their counsel appeared at the hearing. The …
The owners leased premises to United Commercial Bank for five‑year terms, renewing twice, but did not renew after the lease expired on 31 March 1991. The owners demanded vacancy, yet the bank continued to pay an enhanced rent, which the owners accepted and withdrew. The dispute centered on whether …
Manmohan Kaur, a tenant, was ordered by the trial court to deposit rent monthly. She failed to deposit rent for November and December 1986 due to a genuine mistake, believing her son had paid. The landlord sought to strike out her defence under Section 13 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and …
