Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R versus U N L versus KAILASH CHANDRA

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


R V U N L v KAILASH CHANDRA - CSA Case No. 684 of 2003 [2006] RD-RJ 2143 (6 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.684 Of 2003.

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Kota

Versus

Kailash Chandra

Date Of Order ::: 06.11.2006.

Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J.

Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant.

By the Court :

Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant.

The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default in making the payment of rent as well as for determination of the standard rent. Learned Lower Court while recording the finding on default in favour of the plaintiff, did not pass the decree of eviction by giving the benefit of first default to the defendant-respondent. However, the standard rent of the rented premises was determined as

Rs.600/- per month as against the contractual rent at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. Being aggrieved with the same, both the parties preferred an appeal. The

First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant and enhanced the standard rent from

Rs.600/- to Rs.850/- per month. The appeal of the defendant was rejected by the First Appellate Court.

Under these circumstances, the plaintiff-appellant has filed this second appeal for enhancement of the amount of standard rent.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in the light of the findings of the First Appellate Court.

The question of the determination of amount of standard rent is purely a question of fact and there is a finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court in this regard, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in second appeal under Section 100 of the

C.P.C.

I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding of the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law involved in this second appeal.

Consequently, the second appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.

(Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.