Akbar Ali Vs. Ali Mohammed

practice - overwhelming evidence to support the finding arrived at by the appellate court--held, no good reason to interfere with its decree. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - the tenant having failed to surrender possession, ali mohammed sued akbar ali for eviction and for arrears of rent. the defendant unsuccessfully appealed. the courts below were right in the appraisal of the evidence and i find no good reason to interfere in the second appeal......munsif court no. 2, udaipur the grounds on which the eviction was sought were two fold: one that the defendant had not paid the rent from 16.12.1969 to 16.7.70 i e. for a period of seven months and as such he was a defaulter. the second ground was that the plaintiff required the suit house for personal necessity.3. the suit was resisted by the defendant-tenant. after trial the learned trial judge accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed his suit for eviction. the defendant unsuccessfully appealed. the appeal was dismissed by the additional civil judge, udaipur by his order dated 11.12.1974. this order is the subject matter of challenge in the second appeal.4. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties. the evidence was read out before me there is over whelming evidence to support the finding that plaintiff's requirement of the suit house was bona fide and reasonable. the courts below were right in the appraisal of the evidence and i find no good reason to interfere in the second appeal. in my opinion the decree has rightly been passed and it must be maintained.5. however, for the appellant mr. bhandari has urged that he may be allowed sometime to surrender the vacant possession. mr. h.m. parikh has no serious objection and is prepared to allow him six months' time for the purpose.6. in the result, the appeal fails and it is here by dismissed, with costs i allow the defendant appellant six months' time to surrender vacant possession the decree bolder will not accordingly execute the decree for six months from today. the appellant will however continue to pay the mesne profits for this period at the same rate.