Karnataka Court March 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Venkateshvarulu Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR989
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 2nd February 1990 passed in W.P.No. 12184/1989, The Appellant was the petitioner in the Writ Petition. He is 1n occupation of the premises bearing No. 757 situated at 28th Main, III Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the premises.2. A proceeding under Section 10A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Act') was initiated against the appellant-petitioner on the ground that he had occupied the premises in question which was governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act without an order of allotment, therefore, his occupation was illegal, hence he was liable to be evicted under Section 10A of the Rent Control Act. The defence of the appellant-petitioner was that the building was not five years old on the date he occupied the premises, therefore, the provisions of Parts II and III of the Rent Control Act were not attracted to the premises.3. It ...
Noor Mohammed Vs. Navarthanmal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1522; 1991(4)KarLJ571
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. These Revision Petitions are by the same petitioner, who is a tenant of the respondent-landlord, in respect of a non-residential premises,2. The landlord filed the eviction petition on the ground that he required the schedule premises for his personal use and occupation in order to use them as a godown. Eviction was also sought on the ground of default in payment of rents by the tenant. In his statement of objections, the petitioner denied that he was in arrears of rent. As to the landlord's assertion that premises were required for his bona fide use and occupation for the purpose of godown, in view of his existing presses being small, the tenant denied them generally as being not within his knowledge; however, other averments in the eviction petition were admitted as true, such as - the tenant having failed to vacate the premises though he promised to vacate on being informed of the bona fide requirements of the landlord and that landlord would suffer irre...
Ganapati Mankalu Gouda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1248; 1990(1)KarLJ342
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This matter coming up for preliminary hearing after notice, is disposed of by the following order.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents have been heard. Despite chances given, the respondents have failed to file statement of objections. Therefore, this Court must proceed as if the allegations made by the petitioner are true on account of non-traverse.3. Petitioner claims to be the owner of S.No. 53 of Yeilapur Village on the outskirts of Yellapura Town, being an agriculturist. In the said S.No. there was certain tree growth and he wanted to extend the arable land and therefore he wanted to cut and remove the trees in order to bring the land covered by the tree growth under plough. In that behalf he made an application to the Tree Officer under Section 8 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976. That application was made on 30-4-1986. But, no action was taken by the Tree Officer hav...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›