Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Pulin Behari Lal vs Mahadeb Dutte And Ors on 3 February, 1993

Sh.Jaspal Singh Uppal vs Bajrang Bali Singh on 25 February, 2020

In the present proceedings, it is not even the case of the tenant (deceased Mukand Singh) that he had obtained 'written consent' of the landlady to sub­let the shop to his son Joginder Singh. On the contrary, his assertion that the property was taken by him for his son was not believed. Hence, order of eviction cannot be held illegal as the doctrine of waiver cannot be applied. A bald plea of waiver cannot defeat statutory provision made in larger public interest [Vide M/s Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma RCT No.154/16 Page No. 10 of 21 Jaspal Singh Uppal vs Bajrang Bali Singh and Ors., MANU/SC/0785/1987:[1998] 1 SCR1023; Pulin Behari Lal v. Mahadeb Dutta and Ors.MANU/SC/0455/1993: [1993] 1SCR472]."
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Narmada Valley Refrigerated ... vs M/S Chandanmal Lunkad & Company on 20 April, 2023

In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Vinaykisohre Punamchand Mundhada and Another Vs. Shri Bhumi Kalpataru and Others (2010)9 SCC 129; Purushottam & Co. Vs. Manilal & Sons AIR 1961 SC 325; Parvinder Singh Vs. Renu Gautam & Others (2004)4 SCC 794; A.Mahalaxmi Vs. Bala Venkatram (Dead) through LR & others (2020)2 SCC 531; Waman Shriniwas Kini Vs. Ratilal Bhagwandas & Company AIR 1959 SC 689; Shantilal Rampuria and others Vs. Vega Trading Corporation and others (1989)3 SCC 552; Arm Group Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Waldorf Restaurant and Others (2003) 6 SCC 423; Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. Vs. H.C. Sharma and others AIR 1988 SC 145; Pulin Behari Lal Vs. Mahadeb Dutta (1993)1 SCC 629; Ashok Kumar Mishra and another Vs. Goverdhan Bhai (D) and another AIR 2017 SC 1819; and State of Orissa V. J.P Lath (1989)4 SCC 38.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - D D Bansal - Full Document

R.S.I. Limited vs The Property Company Private Limited ... on 24 May, 2001

27. Section 16(1) of the Act enjoins upon the post Act subtenant as also the inducting tenant to give notice to the landlord in the prescribed manner within one month from the date of such subletting. Rule 4 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Rules 1956 requires the notice under Section 16 to be given by Registered post with Acknowledgement Due and such notice is to contain the particulars specified in the said rule. Giving of such a notice under Section 16 is mandatory even when the post Act subtenancy is created under the written consent of the landlord. Such a view was taken by the apex Court in Pulin Behari Lal v. Mahadeb Dutta and Ors. .
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Thomas John vs P. Kochammini Amma And Ors., Etc., on 8 July, 1994

15. Learned counsel for the landlords would then point out that the decision, (1987) 1 SCC 180 : (AIR 1987 SC 242); Sulochana v. Dharmalingam was distinguished in Pulin Behari Lal v. Mahadeb Dutta, (1993) 1 SCC 629 : (1993 AIR SCW 731). The Supreme Court was considering the question whether waiver can be applied against the landlords merely on account of acceptance of rent. The Supreme Court observed that it was necessary for the tenant to prove that the landlords had accepted the rent being fully conscious that by this act they were relinquishing the right of eviction available to them on the ground of subletting under Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which contained more or less provision similar to the provisions contained in Kerala Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Act is for the protection of the rights of the tenants but at the same time it does not permit the subletting by a tenant without the consent in writing of the landlord and this provision has been kept in public interest for the benefit of the landlords and the same can only be negatived by an act of conscious relinquishment of such right by the landlord. Waiver is a question of fact which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court further held that in the case of waiver of any provisions of the statute it is necessary to prove that there was conscious relinquishment of the advantage of such provisions of the statute.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

M.D. Soujanya And Anr. vs S.V.V.P.V.M.C. Mahila Vidya Peeth And ... on 24 January, 2006

(Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amar Kaur ; Shalimar Tar Products Ltd v. H.C. Sharma and Pulin Behari Lal v. Mahadeb Dutta . Further, the agreement said to have been entered into between the petitioners and the 1st respondent is to waive an illegality. Violation of Rule 7(4), of the Rules in G.O. Ms. No.29 dated 5.2.1987, by the 1st respondent is an illegality which is sought to be overcome by way of the agreement. While waiver is the abandonment of a right and signifies nothing more than an intention not to insist upon the right, an agreement to waive an illegality is void on grounds of public policy and would be unenforceable.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - R Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next