Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Kishan Chand vs Jagdish Pershad And Ors. on 16 October, 2001

Gopinath Pal And Ors vs Smt. Chyana Patra on 9 December, 2010

In this connection he has referred a case law reported in (2003) 9 SCC 151 (Kishan Chand v. Jagdish Pershad and ors.). In the referred case Hon'ble Apex Court held that "when the landlord suppressed his other accommodation and it also came out that he had plenty of accommodation in the suit building he was not entitled to get any decree of eviction against tenant.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - T K Gupta - Full Document

Davinder Kumar Chadha & Anr vs Pushpa Rani Sahani on 11 February, 2015

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has taken two main pleas before this Court, firstly that there was concealment of material facts by the Respondent in the eviction petition and secondly the Petitioners had been able to show that additional accommodation was available to the Respondent which was in their possession and that the plea of the Respondent that shops were being run by their daughter Ms.Ritu Sahni was incorrect. The Petitioner seeks to place on record the list of voters prepared by the Election Commission wherein the age of Ms.Ritu Sahni was shown as 42 years in 2013 and thus contends that having admitted that the shops in the name of M/s Guru Kripa were being run by Ms. Ritu Sahni since 1995 cannot be relied upon as in the year 1995 the daughter would be 8 years old. Learned counsel for the Petitioners pointing out to the various facts relies upon the decision in Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh, 2001 (1) SCC 706; Kishan Chand vs. Jagdish Pershad and others, 2003 (9) SCC 151 and Mohd. Jagar and others vs. Nasra Begum, RC Rev. No.279 of 2011 decided on 9th July, 2012.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 11 - M Gupta - Full Document

Sunil Ahuja vs . Mithlesh Rani on 30 July, 2013

8. The Counsel for the respondent relied on decisions reported as Kishan Chand v. Jagdish Pershad & Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 151; Ranjan Gupta v. A.F.Ferguson & Company 42(1990) DLT 66 and Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 in support of the argument that the stated bonafide requirement of the landlord could not be a mere desire and whim of the landlord and that it could not be used as a pretext to get rid of the tenant.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next