Eviction

as far as ground of personal necessity is concerned, it is the best possible ground available for the purpose.

trial courts do consume more time than appellate authorities, since personal necessity matter does not require too technical kind of evidence, it will be upon you and your counsel to conclude the matter as soon as possible.

Whose cross examiantion ? whether it is yours or tenents?. If it is yours then after your cross exmaintion tenent will have to lead his evidence and his cross examination only  it will be posted for the argument.  Bengaluru courts are always busy courts so many pending cases.  so it may take time.

Think about one or two more years! 

Such cases end up in SC so do not bother about time.

CAN A TENANT BE EVICTED WHO HAS NOT PAID RENT FOR LAST 18 MONTHS EARLIER HE WAS PAYING BY CROSSED CHEQUES

It doesn't matter by what mean the tenent was paying the rent in the past.

What it matters is IS he paying the Updated Rent at all. 18 months of none-payment of Rent makes him the Super-Duper Defaulter, and Court hates Defaulter in any Rent Control Act... :)

the landlord has to prove that the tenant has not paid the rent. If no rent was paid any notice was issued if not it will go against landlord.

Isn't the past payment done by tanent by mean of cheques... evidences enough that the tanent was getting "receipts" from the Landlord ? Let the tanent show his part of  evidence of a receipt in paying the next 18 months rent, even if it's some counterfoils of cheques.

Moreover, In real life, a note for none payment of rent can be given by landlord to tanent Verbally.

If Landlord neglected his duty of issueing a receipt then why did n't the tanent claimed for one Legally ?... or paid the next 18 months rent in cheques also just like he did before ?

I don't think that the Court is so easy to  "it will go against landlord"  

the burden of proof is on landlord that the rent reciepts were issued. And what he has done if no rent was recieved. Non issue of rent reciepts is criminla offense.

I THINK SH.DIPANGKAR IS RIGHT BUT IN THE LAST OF HIS REPLY HE STATED IT WILL GO AGAINST LANDLORD WHICH APPEARS TO BE CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT HE SAID IN EARLIER PART OF HIS REPLY

Pawan Kumar, I didn't say that it will go against the landlord. (??????)

What i said is in a quote....

What I said is ----> [ I don't think that the Court is so easy to "it will go against landlord"  ]