Kamlesh vs Jaipal Singh Jain on 7 October, 2023
(viii) the High Court was thus not right in following Mohd.
Quresh supra;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (3.78 seconds)Documents citing
Mohd. Quresh vs Roopa Fotedar And Ors. on 15 December, 1989
Courts vs Sarbati Devi on 31 May, 2011
It is held in Md. Quresh Vs. Smt.
//5//
Roopa Fotedar & Ors (supra) that a tenant who does not apply for
permission to defend within 15 days is not entitled to apply for condonation
of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. However, he may apply for setting
aside of eviction order u/s 37 of CPC on special reasons.
Prithipal Singh vs Satpal Singh(D) Th.Lrs on 18 December, 2009
28. Therefore, in view of our discussions made hereinearlier and in
view of our findings that there was no reason for us not to rely on the
decision of Prakash H. Jain (supra), only because that decision was
rendered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, whereas the
present case has been filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, but on
2
comparing the aforesaid two Acts and in view of the observations and
principles laid down by this Court in Prakash H. Jain (supra), as
noted hereinearlier, we are of the view that the provisions under the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the provisions under the Delhi
Rent Control Act are pari materia and therefore, the decision in the
case of Prakash H. Jain (supra) practically overrules the decision of
the Delhi High Court reported in Mohd. Quresh (supra) and Gurditta
Mal (supra).
Shri Nabi Khan & Anr. vs Shri Haji Gyasuddin on 4 March, 2014
In Mohd. Quresh (supra), another
decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gurditta Mal
Vs. Bal Sarup [AIR 1980 Delhi 216] was relied on to come
to a conclusion that in view of Rule 23 of the Rules, the
Rent Controller was conferred with the power to entertain
an application under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Section 151
of the Code."
Kancho Devi vs Saurabh Srivastava on 4 March, 2014
In Mohd. Quresh (supra), another
decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gurditta Mal
Vs. Bal Sarup [AIR 1980 Delhi 216] was relied on to come
RCR No.341/2012 Page 9 of 15
to a conclusion that in view of Rule 23 of the Rules, the
Rent Controller was conferred with the power to entertain
an application under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Section 151
of the Code."
Manish Kumar vs Hemlata on 5 March, 2014
In Mohd. Quresh (supra), another
decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gurditta Mal
Vs. Bal Sarup [AIR 1980 Delhi 216] was relied on to come
to a conclusion that in view of Rule 23 of the Rules, the
Rent Controller was conferred with the power to entertain an
application under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of
the Code."
Gurucharan Singh Wason vs Praful Prakash Ramanand on 5 March, 2014
In Mohd. Quresh (supra), another
decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gurditta Mal
Vs. Bal Sarup [AIR 1980 Delhi 216] was relied on to come
to a conclusion that in view of Rule 23 of the Rules, the
Rent Controller was conferred with the power to entertain an
application under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of
the Code."
Director Directorate Of Education & Anr vs Mohd. Shamim & Ors on 29 November, 2019
Per contra the tenant Satpal Singh relied on the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Quresh Vs. Roopa Fotedar
1989 SCC OnLine Del 433 holding that the Rent Controller has inherent
powers exercisable by a Civil Court under Section 151 of the CPC and the
source of the said power was to be found in Rule 23 of the Delhi Rent
Control Rules.
Shyamal Prasad Das vs Anita Verma on 4 March, 2014
In Mohd. Quresh (supra), another
decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gurditta Mal
Vs. Bal Sarup [AIR 1980 Delhi 216] was relied on to come
to a conclusion that in view of Rule 23 of the Rules, the
Rent Controller was conferred with the power to entertain
an application under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Section 151
of the Code."
Anila Jain vs Nikunj Singhania on 5 March, 2014
In Mohd. Quresh (supra), another
decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gurditta Mal
Vs. Bal Sarup [AIR 1980 Delhi 216] was relied on to come
to a conclusion that in view of Rule 23 of the Rules, the
Rent Controller was conferred with the power to entertain an
application under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of
the Code."