Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Basant Ram And Ors. vs Smt. Devi And Ors. on 16 November, 1999

Pramod Chander And Ors. vs Ishwar Dayal on 5 May, 2003

28. It may be noted that the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Basant Ram (supra) took note of many other judgments while holding that even the purchaser of the premises who had purchased the property after landlord got possession thereof in pursuance of ex-parte order, will have to restore the possession when such ex-parte order is set aside in appeal. That was also a case where the purchaser after purchasing the property had made some improvement in the premises as well. The judgments noted in this behalf by the Punjab & Haryana High Court were:
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Y.P. Gugnani vs Ennee Pharma & Anr on 18 February, 2008

9. Sh. Tarun Kandhari has been heard on the application under section 144 CPC. It is stated by Sh. Tarun Kandhari that since he has already been inducted as a tenant in the suit property by the plaintiff by virtue of lease deed 16.3.2007 , therefore, if this decree is set aside or restoration is ordered on the instant application he will suffer irreparable loss as he is paying regular rent to the plaintiff. This arguments of Sh. Tarun Kandhari has no force 14 in view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Basant Ram Vs. Smt. Devi, 2001(1) RCR 138. The relevant portion of which is as under :-
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Y.P. Gugnani vs Ennee Pharma & Anr on 18 February, 2008

9. Sh. Tarun Kandhari has been heard on the application under section 144 CPC. It is stated by Sh. Tarun Kandhari that since he has already been inducted as a tenant in the suit property by the plaintiff by virtue of lease deed 16.3.2007 , therefore, if this decree is set aside or restoration is ordered on the instant application he will suffer irreparable loss as he is paying regular rent to the plaintiff. This arguments of Sh. Tarun Kandhari has no force 14 in view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Basant Ram Vs. Smt. Devi, 2001(1) RCR 138. The relevant portion of which is as under :-
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Pushpa Ahuja vs Shri Sunil Nagpal And Others on 4 March, 2011

Similarly, in the case of Basant Ram and others (Supra), it was held by this Court that once a person is held entitled to restitution of possession of property in dispute, he will have the right to get back such property in the same condition as it was already in the possession of the other person and improvement in the property will have no affect as it would not defeat the rights of the respondent merely on the ground that the property has been sold. It was held that the purchaser will be bound by the order passed against the original landlord.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - R K Jain - Full Document

Gopal Krishan Arya And Another vs Devender Divedi And Another on 22 March, 2010

It was held in Basant Ram and others Vs. Smt. Devi and others 2000(1) The Punjab Law Reporter 755 that if a landlord obtained exparte order of eviction and also possession in pursuance thereof and that order came to be ultimately set aside, the tenant would be entitled to restitution of possession not only from the landlord but also from the transferee or assignee etc. of the latter.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1