https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298214 A revision petitioner impleaded in eviction proceedings and in possession of the premises was held to have locus standi to challenge the eviction order, particularly where the original tenant or legal representatives did not effectively participate. On the merits, eviction was not sustained on default, as statutory notice demanding arrears was not proved as required; alleged permanent structure failed because digging a well did not match the pleaded ground; subletting was not established due to vague pleadings and no identified portion; and bona fide requirement failed for want of particulars on the proposed construction and preparedness. The court held that eviction under the rent-control grounds could not stand without strict proof of the pleaded foundation and statutory requirements. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Oct 2021 17:57:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298214 A revision petitioner impleaded in eviction proceedings and in possession of the premises was held to have locus standi to challenge the eviction order, particularly where the original tenant or legal representatives did not effectively participate. On the merits, eviction was not sustained on default, as statutory notice demanding arrears was not proved as required; alleged permanent structure failed because digging a well did not match the pleaded ground; subletting was not established due to vague pleadings and no identified portion; and bona fide requirement failed for want of particulars on the proposed construction and preparedness. The court held that eviction under the rent-control grounds could not stand without strict proof of the pleaded foundation and statutory requirements. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298214