https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181972 Eviction proceedings were upheld where the tenancy was taken in the name of a concern not shown to be a separate legal entity, and the record indicated that the parties understood the real tenancy arrangement. The objection that the appellant was the real tenant failed because no prejudice was shown from the form in which the lease and proceedings were framed, while the findings of rent default and bona fide requirement also stood. Interference under Article 136 was refused because concurrent findings disclosed no manifest injustice, and the long lapse of time and equities of the case supported non-interference. The eviction decree was sustained, with only limited conditional protection regulating possession pending compliance. en-us Fri, 11 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:53:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181972 Eviction proceedings were upheld where the tenancy was taken in the name of a concern not shown to be a separate legal entity, and the record indicated that the parties understood the real tenancy arrangement. The objection that the appellant was the real tenant failed because no prejudice was shown from the form in which the lease and proceedings were framed, while the findings of rent default and bona fide requirement also stood. Interference under Article 136 was refused because concurrent findings disclosed no manifest injustice, and the long lapse of time and equities of the case supported non-interference. The eviction decree was sustained, with only limited conditional protection regulating possession pending compliance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181972