Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 220 (2.57 seconds)
Documents citing Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. vs Kavita P Lalwani on 25 May, 2012

M/S Greenways Through Its Partner vs Y.N. Gupta (Deceased) Through Its Lrs & ... on 5 August, 2024

63. Regarding the dispute over the suit property‟s number, it was argued that both parties are clear about the property‟s identity, and it is identifiable as per the site plan filed by the defendant in Civil Suit No. 149/10. The plaintiff submitted that even in the reply dated 10th October, 2013 to the termination notice, the suit property was clearly identified, and compliance with notifying termination was duly observed, as per Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavita P Lalwani (Supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Shri S.P. Sharma vs Smt. Manjeet Kaur on 17 October, 2013

33. It has been proved on record that defendant no. 1 had executed rent deed Ex. PW­1/3 and Ex. PW­1/4 and defendant no. 2 also executed rent deed Ex. PW­1/6 but both the defendants have taken the plea that they have executed no rent deeds. In view of the settled preposition of law, it was statutory duty of the defendants to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff after the expiry of the period of the tenancy but they had not handed over the possession of the suit premises even after filing of the suit and taken false pleas. Therefore, in view of ratio of case laws namely Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd.­ Appellant vs Kavita P. Lalwani­Respondent (Supra), Ramrameshwari Devi vs. Nirmala Devi (supra), Punjab National Bank vs. Virender Prakash (supra), Trilochan Singh­appelalnt vs. Daya Shankar & ors­respondents (supra) and Indian Council for Enviro and Legal Action vs. Union of Suit No. 305/12 26/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors. India (supra), I am of the view that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed with penal costs also.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Parveen Kumar Kataria vs Mr. Vijay Kumar on 23 August, 2017

In the case of  Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavita P Lalwani,   191(2012)   DLT   594,   it   was   inter   alia   held   that presumption of service of notice of termination is embodied in Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 whereby service of notice shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre­paying and posting the notice by registered post.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Setia Buildwell Pvt. Ltd vs Sh. Shantanu Saikia on 21 January, 2014

Not the least, as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA no. 179/2011, case titled as "M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals vs. M/s. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF)", and in case titled as "Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd vs. Kavita P. Lalwani", reported in 191 (2012) DLT 594, mere filing of the suit itself amounts to notice of termination of tenancy of the tenant. As such, the tenancy was legally terminated by the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Shashi Sharma vs M/S V.D Autowheels on 21 March, 2014

12. Further in the judgment of Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kavita P. Lanwani, 191 (2012) Delhi Law Times 594, it was observed that, Under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, the lessee is estopped from denying the titled of the transferee landlord. Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act provides that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuous of tenancy, be permitted to deny the titled of the landlord meaning thereby that so long as the tenant has not surrendered the possession, he cannot dispute the title of the landlord. Howsoever, defective the title of the land lord may be, a tenant is not permitting to dispute the same unless he has surrendered the possession of his landlord.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Rajender K. Vaid on 30 November, 2013

16. Further, a bare perusal of constitution of the society which has been filed only after the directions and query made with respect to the fact that who is responsible for day to day affairs of the society and admittedly defendnat has been authorized by resolution passed in the society in the month of November 2010 then I do not understand under which capacity and how he has sent reply dated 09.07.2010 Ex.DW1/22 to the legal notice dated 21/22.05.10 Ex.PW1/E. After taking into consideration facts and circumstances and the evidence led by the parties, I am of the view that in view of the admission of service of legal notice dated 21/22.05.10 Ex.PW1/E and reply Ex.DW1/22 and counter reply Ex.DW1/23 and also in view of the admission that not only earlier lease agreement Ex.DW1/16, Ex.DW1/15, Ex.DW1/14 and last lease agreement has been extended and executed on 21.06.07 which is Suit no. 269/10 Page no. 22/29 Ex.PW1/13 by the defendant only and in view of Judgment titled as Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavita P. Lalwani 2012 (4) CLJ 83 Del, plaintiff has successfully establish that despite termination of lease deed Ex.PW1/13 by efflux of time as well as through legal notice terminated Ex.DW1/13, the defendant has not vacated the property in question and hold possession illegally and unauthorizedly specially in keeping in view the facts that after receiving legal noice Ex.PW1/E he has informed the society as admitted, even otherwise lease deed/agreement has not been extended after expiry of last lease agreement Ex.PW1/13, defendant further admitted in his written statement that he made request to the plaintiff in his reply dated 09.07.2010 to extend or renew the lease agreement with undertaking to enhance rent @ 10% and also admitted that the premises are being used for residential of defendant family, however the defendant has also been running business as per document Ex.DW1/22, because the request to stay in the property in question were made till the allotments of land which were allegedly allowed and very cleverly and deliberately contested the suit on the false and frivolous ground in the garb that the society is the tenant and retained or hold the possession of the property in question. Further, since the tenancy has been terminated, hence neither defendant nor the society under the law can hold the possession of the Suit no. 269/10 Page no. 23/29 property in question and it is admitted by the defendant all lease agreements Ex.PW1/13 to Ex.PW1/19 has been extended by the defendant being Secretary and not only the legal notice Ex.PW1/E but also present suit has been contended by filing written statement by the defendant sent/filed being the Secretary of the society and till today the defendant has been holding the post of Secretary as such I hold that he is responsible for day to day affairs of the society and he under obligation is supposed to intimate the service of termination of lease through legal notice Ex.PW1/E upon him, if not intimated earlier but failed, reason best to my understanding from the averment made in It is contended that defendant who is aged about 66 years has no any other alternative to stay alongwith his family members except the property in question and also no other space is available to keep the record of the society members in the property in question which has been taken by the plaintiff in the year 1996 for commercial cum residents purpose." It is also contended that the defendant society spend near about Rs. 10,24,514/­ for the maintenance and repairing of the property in question at the request of the parents of plaintiff which was promised to be returned but till date same has not been returned back. It is also contended that the family member of the plaintiff also promised that till allotment of land, defendant can leave or run society office in the Suit no. 269/10 Page no. 24/29 property in question. It is further contended that the defendant through reply dated 09.07.2010 of the legal notice by the plaintiff asked the plaintiff to pay Rs. 10,24,514/­ and also requested to renew the rent agreement with undertaking to enhance rent @ 10 % subject to execution of new rent agreement with the defendant and so it is established the society has not holding his office exclusively in the property in question and the entire premises is being used by the defendant alone. Hence, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has successfully established that the defendant is a tenant and despite termination of tenancy by efflux of time as well as through legal notice Ex.PW1/E, defendant hold the possession illegally and unauthorizedly without any right, hence both these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in view of discussion and judgments captioned above.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Lok Sewak Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd vs Shri Sunny on 4 June, 2016

33. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment of Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavita P. Palwani, 2012 (4) CLJ 83 Delhi has held that according to Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Lessee is stopped from denying the title of the transferee landlord. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny the title of the landlord meaning thereby that so long as the tenant has not surrendered the possession, he cannot dispute the title of the landlord. However, defective the title of the landlord may be, a tenant is not permitted to dispute the same unless he has surrendered the possession to his landlord.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next