Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 125 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Ranbir Singh vs Asharfi Lal on 21 September, 1995

Smt. Sumati Naik vs Shri Dilip Fatarpekar & Others on 24 November, 1998

7. The Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal (supra) referring to its earlier judgment in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. India Automobiles and Company and others, has held that in a suit for eviction based on such relationship of landlord and tenant, the Court has only to decided whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff or not, though the question of title if disputed, may incidentally be gone into, in connection with the primary question for determining the main question about the relationship between the litigating parties.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

Subbiah Pannaiyar vs Shanmugavelayudham And Ors. on 13 August, 1996

In the Supreme Court decision cited supra, namely, Dr. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal , their Lordships also said that even if title is proved, and the contract is not proved, the owner may not be entitled to recover the property. That also strengthens my finding that so far as the ownership of the building and the title to the property is concerned, the Second Proviso to Section 10(1) of the Rent Control Act will not be a bar.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dalip Singh vs Durga Prasad Sharma & Anr on 19 February, 2025

India Automobiles & Co. [(1990) 4 SCC 286] wherein the Court had observed that: (Ranbir Singh case [(1995) 6 SCC 580] , SCC pp. 585-86, para 9) "9. ... in a suit for eviction between the landlord and tenant, the Court will take only a prima facie decision on the collateral issue as to whether the applicant was landlord. If the Court finds existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties it will have to pass a decree in accordance with law. It has been further observed therein that all that the Court has to do is to satisfy itself that the person seeking eviction is a landlord, who has prima facie right to receive the rent of the property in question. In order to decide whether denial of landlord's title by the tenant is bona fide the Court may have to go into tenant's contention on the issue but the Court is not to decide the question of title finally as the Court has to see whether the tenant's denial of title of the landlord is bona fide in the circumstances of the case."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gulabchandra Samual vs Manish Sharma ( Dead) Through Jyoti ... on 19 February, 2026

[(1990) 4 SCC 286] wherein the Court had observed that: (Ranbir Singh case [(1995) 6 SCC 580] , SCC pp. 585-86, para 9) "9. ... in a suit for eviction between the landlord and tenant, the Court will take only a prima facie decision on the collateral issue as to whether the 14 applicant was landlord. If the Court finds existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties it will have to pass a decree in accordance with law. It has been further observed therein that all that the Court has to do is to satisfy itself that the person seeking eviction is a landlord, who has prima facie right to receive the rent of the property in question. In order to decide whether denial of landlord's title by the tenant is bona fide the Court may have to go into tenant's contention on the issue but the Court is not to decide the question of title finally as the Court has to see whether the tenant's denial of title of the landlord is bona fide in the circumstances of the case."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Nagarajan vs Renganathan @ Thangam (Died) ... 1St

In the Supreme Court decision cited supra, namely, Dr. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal , their Lordships also said that even if title is proved, and the contract is not proved, the owner may not be entitled to recover the property. That also strengthens my finding that so far as the ownership of the building and the title to the property is concerned, the Second Proviso to Section 10(1) of the Rent Control Act will not be a bar.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

Lajjawati Sharma & Anr vs Ram Chander Jain (Deceased) Thr Legal ... on 12 March, 2025

India Automobiles & Co. [(1990) 4 SCC 286] wherein the Court had observed that: (Ranbir Singh case [(1995) 6 SCC 580] , SCC pp. 585-86, para 9) "9. ... in a suit for eviction between the landlord and tenant, the Court will take only a prima facie decision on the collateral issue as to whether the applicant was landlord. If the Court finds existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties it will have to pass a decree in accordance with law. It has been further observed therein that all that the Court has to do is to satisfy itself that the person seeking eviction is a landlord, who has prima facie right to receive the rent of the property in question. In order to decide whether denial of landlord's title by the tenant is bona fide the Court may have to go into tenant's contention on the issue but the Court is not to decide the question of title finally as the Court has to see whether the tenant's denial of title of the landlord is bona fide in the circumstances of the case."
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prabhati Lal Now Deceased Through Their ... vs Neetu Nanda on 20 February, 2025

India Automobiles & Co. [(1990) 4 SCC 286] wherein the Court had observed that: (Ranbir Singh case [(1995) 6 SCC 580] , SCC pp. 585-86, para 9) "9. ... in a suit for eviction between the landlord and tenant, the Court will take only a prima facie decision on the collateral issue as to whether the applicant was landlord. If the Court finds existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties it will have to pass a decree in accordance with law. It has been further observed therein that all that the Court has to do is to satisfy itself that the person seeking eviction is a landlord, who has prima facie right to receive the rent of the property in question. In order to decide whether denial of landlord's title by the tenant is bona fide the Court may have to go into tenant's contention on the issue but the Court is not to decide the question of title finally as the Court has to see whether the tenant's denial of title of the landlord is bona fide in the circumstances of the case."
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next