Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Milk Food Ltd. vs Kiran Khanna on 4 May, 1993

Kiran Walia vs Raj Malhotra on 14 January, 2026

It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Rajendras Properties (Delhi) Pvt. ... vs Ashok Bansal & Ors. on 8 August, 2023

25. Since more than twelve years have elapsed after appellant no.1 was asked to attorn to respondents No.1 .1 to 5, learned Single Judge in the impugned order correctly relying upon the decision passed in Milk Food vs Kiran Khanna; 51 (1993) DLT 141 held that irrespective of any deficiency Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT RFA(OS) 84/2013 Page 12 of 16 Signing Date:17.08.2023 18:21:09 in title of the person claiming to be the landlord, it is not open to th the tenant to deny the relationship. Consequently, this Court is in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the question of title is irrelevant and need not be adjudicated.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Manmohan - Full Document

Smt. Taruna Rani vs Sh. Shesh Kumar on 7 December, 2018

13. The respondent has not denied the landlord tenant relationship but  has taken defence that petitioner is not the owner of the property. Respondent is  estopped as per Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act from disputing the title of  petitoner. Meaning of word owner vis a vis the tenant is that the owner should be  sometime more than the tenant (Milk Food Ltd. V. Kiran Khanna, 51 (1993) DLT   141   (Delhi)  Accordingly,   the   landlady   and   tenant   relationship   between   the  petitioners and respondent has been established with ownership of the petitioner.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Taruna Rani vs Sh. Ved Prakash on 7 December, 2018

13. The respondent has not denied the landlord tenant relationship but  has taken defence that petitioner is not the owner of the property. Respondent is  estopped as per Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act from disputing the title of  petitoner. Meaning of word owner vis a vis the tenant is that the owner should be  sometime more than the tenant (Milk Food Ltd. V. Kiran Khanna, 51 (1993) DLT   141   (Delhi)  Accordingly,   the   landlady   and   tenant   relationship   between   the  petitioners and respondent has been established with ownership of the petitioner.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Taruna Rani vs Sh. Subhash Chand on 7 December, 2018

13. The respondent has not denied the landlord tenant relationship but  has taken defence that petitioner is not the owner of the property. Respondent is  estopped as per Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act from disputing the title of  petitoner. Meaning of word owner vis a vis the tenant is that the owner should be  sometime more than the tenant (Milk Food Ltd. V. Kiran Khanna, 51 (1993) DLT   141   (Delhi)  Accordingly,   the   landlady   and   tenant   relationship   between   the  petitioners and respondent has been established with ownership of the petitioner.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Taruna Rani vs Sh. Mahander Behel on 7 December, 2018

13. The respondent has not denied the landlord tenant relationship but  has taken defence that petitioner is not the owner of the property. Respondent is  estopped as per Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act from disputing the title of  petitoner. Meaning of word owner vis a vis the tenant is that the owner should be  sometime more than the tenant (Milk Food Ltd. V. Kiran Khanna, 51 (1993) DLT   141   (Delhi)  Accordingly,   the   landlady   and   tenant   relationship   between   the  petitioners and respondent has been established with ownership of the petitioner.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Taruna Rani vs Sh. Shehjad Ali on 7 December, 2018

13. The respondent has not denied the landlord tenant relationship but  has taken defence that petitioner is not the owner of the property. Respondent is  estopped as per Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act from disputing the title of  petitoner. Meaning of word owner vis a vis the tenant is that the owner should be  sometime more than the tenant (Milk Food Ltd. V. Kiran Khanna, 51 (1993) DLT   141   (Delhi)  Accordingly,   the   landlady   and   tenant   relationship   between   the  petitioners and respondent has been established with ownership of the petitioner.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Gopal Kishan vs Sh. Gulab Baldeva on 15 December, 2018

23. The respondent has not denied the landlord tenant relationship and the  meaning of word owner vis a vis the tenant is that the owner should be sometime  more than the tenant (Milk Food Ltd. V. Kiran Khanna, 51 (1993) DLT 141 (Delhi).   Accordingly,   the   landlord   and   tenant   relationship   between   the   petitioner   and  respondent has been established with ownership of the petitioner.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Gopal Kishan vs Sh. Kalu Ram on 15 December, 2018

23. The respondent has not denied the landlord tenant relationship and  the   meaning   of  word   owner  vis  a   vis  the   tenant  is  that  the   owner  should   be  sometime more than the tenant (Milk Food Ltd. V. Kiran Khanna, 51 (1993) DLT   141   (Delhi).  Accordingly,   the   landlord   and   tenant   relationship   between   the  petitioner and respondent has been established with ownership of the petitioner.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sadhna Tyagi vs Mohd. Farukh on 7 January, 2019

21. The respondent has not denied the landlord tenant relationship and even in the para 2nd of leave to defend he has admitted that he paid the rent of Rs. 41250/­ for the period of March 2010 to May 2016. The meaning of word owner ARC. No. 150/18 Smt. Sadhna Tyagi Vs. Mohd. Farukh Page 9/14 vis a vis the tenant is that the owner should be sometime more than the tenant (Milk Food Ltd. V. Kiran Khanna, 51 (1993) DLT 141 (Delhi). Accordingly, the landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent and the ownership of the petitioner has been established. The property was purchased on 26.02.2010 by petitioner and petition was filed on 10.04.2018 so bar of Section 14 (6) DRC Act is not applicable.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next