Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Madan Lal And Anr. vs Smt. Bhupinder Kaur And Ors. on 7 March, 2003

Anil Kumar vs Sita Devi And Anr. on 24 August, 2006

20. The learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter relied upon the judgment of this Court in Madan Lal and Anr. v. Bhupinder Kaur and Ors. 2003 (1) Rent C.R. 608, wherein this Court was pleased to hold that in order to prove the sub-letting, it is necessary to prove the delivery of exclusive possession to the sub-tenant. The case of the tenant-petitioner was that in the present case, there is no parting of exclusive possession.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Abraham Roy vs Philip @ Pappachan on 18 March, 2009

At the most, it can be stated that there was some compulsion on the part of the landlord to the tenant to vacate the premises immediately. Exertion of such compulsion by a landlord on the tenant for procuring early eviction in our opinion cannot be a circumstance indicative of absence of genuineness in the need projected by the landlord. On the contrary the circumstance that the landlord had been compelling the tenant to vacate the building immediately, in a given case can be indicative of the genuineness and urgency of the landlord's need. We in this context will notice that a learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had occasion to observe as follows in his judgment in Madan Lal v. Smt.Gurbachan Kaur, 1981 (1) R.C.J. 640.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1