Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Dunlop India Ltd. vs Shri Sunil Puri And Others on 20 December, 2000

Vyom Garg & Anr vs M/S Shyam Lal Aggarwal & Sons & Ors on 23 February, 2010

12. Now, it is well settled through a series of judgments that in the absence of a registered lease deed the tenancy is deemed to be on monthly basis (referred to Section 107 of the Transfer of property Act and the Division Bench ruling in Dunlop India Ltd. vs. Sunil Puri & Others; 90 (2001) DLT 769 (DB). The defendant has right in contending that the terms of the lease deed cannot be looked into since they are unregistered. Section 107 as well as Section 47 of the Registration Act is such as to rule out the courts' scrutiny into their terms of such unregistered lease deed. The only exceptions in such cases are that the document may be looked into for a collateral purpose.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Through vs Sh.Sanjay Anand on 6 January, 2007

In similar situations in the case of N.C. JAIN vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, 77(1999) DLT 108 and AMARCHAND TALWAR vs EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, 77(1999) DLT 809 and DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED (supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for possession of the suit property and directed enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC to determine the rate and quantum of mesne profits.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Col. V.P. Mohan vs Suresh Batra on 24 April, 2007

In similar situations in the case of N.C. JAIN vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, 77 (1999) DLT108 and AMARCHAND TALWAR vs EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, 77(1999) DLT 809 and DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED (supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for possession of the suit property and directed CS/226/06 Page 10 of 11 pages 11 enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC to determine the rate and quantum of mesne profits.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Adarsh Dusaj vs Sh. Sanjeev Malik on 13 May, 2010

"5. Assuming that there was an oral arrangement not to evict the defendant till 2007, even in that case the defendant cannot successfully resist a suit for possession by the plaintiff in as much as the said oral arrangement was not made a part of the registered lease deed. No benefit or advantage could be taken by the defendant of the alleged oral understanding as a defence to a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction of the defendant."
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. R.C.Jain vs Sh. Mohinder Jeet Singh on 5 May, 2009

"Assuming that there was an oral arrangement not to evict the defendant till 2007, even in that case the defendant cannot successfully resist a suit for possession by the plaintiff in as much as the said oral arrangement was not made a part of the registered lease deed. No benefit or advantage could be taken by the defendant of the alleged oral understanding as a defence to a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction of the defendant. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act require that a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving yearly rent can be made only by a registered instrument. In the absence of any registered instrument incorporating the alleged oral understanding, this plea itself will be of no avail and on this plea a suit for possession 7/10 8 cannot be resisted."
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Isha Bedi vs Sh. Raj Kumar Dhingra on 2 September, 2008

Thus it is clear that the period of tenancy terminated by efflux of time on 31.08.07 as the lease was specifically for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 01.09.05. The suit was filed on 08.08.06 and at that time the question of proper service of notice of termination was to be pleaded. However, once the tenancy has expired on the basis of efflux of time no notice of termination of tenancy was necessary. Similarly, it has been held in Dunlop India Vs. Sunil Puri and ors. 2001 III AD (Del) 604 that where the lease had been created by a registered document the extension of such a lease had also to be through a registered instrument and in the absence of such a registered instrument a suit for possession cannot resisted.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohta Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd vs Delhi Factory Owners' Federation on 13 February, 2007

In similar situations in the case of N.C. JAIN vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, 77(1999) DLT108 and CS 178/06 Page 8 of 9 pages 9 AMARCHAND TALWAR vs EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, 77(1999) DLT 809 and DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED (supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for possession of the suit property and directed enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC to determine the rate and quantum of mesne profits.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1