25% OFF on all LCI Courses. Offer valid till 5th Oct. Use Code: DUS25
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

asad (md)     12 February 2011

Eviction

i have filed  case for eviction against my tenant in bangalore since i require the place for my personal use. it has been more than two tears since i have terminated his lease  agreement and one and half years since the case is running in the civilcourt . the case has come to the cross examining stage how long do think it will take for me toget the eviction order  from the court against  my tenant. how long do cases like these take to get an eviction order would like to know your expert opinion and advise regarding the time it would take me to get my property back . 



Learning

 12 Replies

Kiran Kumar (Lawyer)     12 February 2011

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.

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (practicing advocate)     12 February 2011

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.

S. CHANDRAKANTH (ENGINEER)     01 March 2011

Think about one or two more years! 

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     01 March 2011

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

pawan kumar (-)     15 June 2011

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

Dipangkar (Business)     16 June 2011

Originally posted by :pawan kumar
"
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... :)

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     16 June 2011

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.

Dipangkar (Business)     16 June 2011

 

Originally posted by :YOUR ADVOCATE
"
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"  

Dipangkar (Business)     16 June 2011

Please skip this post. This is a test of Modifying a post

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     17 June 2011

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.

pawan kumar (-)     17 June 2011

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

Dipangkar (Business)     19 June 2011

Originally posted by :pawan kumar
"
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"  ]


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading
Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query