Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing Rup Chand vs Shanti Devi on 2 April, 1987

Keshav Metal Works And Anr. vs Jitender Kumar Verma on 15 December, 1993

(21) In the cases relied by Mr. Lekhi namely Dr. Mrs. N.D.Kanan, Mr. Edwin Brave and Radha Mohan, the tenant had raised the objection about the maintainability of the petition at the first available opportunity. This objection was taken either in the written statement or ill the leave to defend application. Hence the observation in those cases are of no help to the petitioner because he never look this plea before the trial court. Moreover the view expressed in those cases was distinguished in subsequent cases of this court, namely, Man mohan Mehra (Supra), Arvind Berry V. Admiral A.P.S. bindra (Supra), and Rup Chand V. Shanti Devi reported in 1987 Dlt (32) 269.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

M/S A.B. Lal & Sons vs . M/S Texind Corporation P. Ltd. on 7 February, 2008

10. At the outset I may observe that Ld. Counsel for the appellant has assailed the Judgment only on the point of subletting and has not pressed his appeal on other grounds. Relying upon Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Bharat Sales Ltd. Vs. LIC of India reported in 1998 RLR (SC) 192 and the judgments of Delhi High court in the case of Gill & Company Ltd. and another Vs. Smt. B.K. Jolly reported in 1986 (2) All India Rent Control Journal 579 and in case of Rup Chand Vs. Ms. Shanti Devi reported in 1987 (2) AIR 305, it has been submitted 8 M/s A.B. Lal & Sons Vs. M/s Texind Corporation P. Ltd. that these Judgments clearly support the plea of the appellant when third parties are admitted in possession of the suit property. Onus to justify the presence shifts upon tenant yet the trial court has just ignored these Judgments and thus committed an error in Law for the simple reason that there is no evidence has been led on behalf of the respondents to prove that respondent no. 2 is associate company of the first respondent or that the third respondent still continues to be am employee of the first respondent. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent who also filed an application subsequent to the hearing of arguments submitted that the present appeal was mis-conceived as no question of law has been framed in this appeal.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1