Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing Rajinder Singh vs Dalip Chand on 17 February, 1994

(O&M;) Amarjit Singh Alias Amba vs Gurbachan Gir & Ors on 24 May, 2018

19. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner could not refer to any citation where the Apex Court has taken a different view than the view taken in case of Rajinder Singh (Dead) Vs. Dalip Chand and others (supra). As per the law laid down in the aforesaid citation, landlord- respondent No.1 had become entitled to seek ejectment of the revision petitioner and the sub tenants after the expiry of 10 years' period for which the lease was originally created.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Gupta - Full Document

Dr. Prem Jit Singh (Son Of Deceased vs Sh. S. Naib Singh on 27 January, 2012

27 It is not denied that the Tenancy Agreement was covered by provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in the year 1988. Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the right of re-entry of the Lessor under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was fettered by provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 during the relevant period. He relied upon the following Judgment reported as "Rajinder Singh (dead) & Anr. Vs Dalip Chand & Ors.; (1995) 1 Supreme Court 759" wherein the following was observed:
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hem Chand Etc. vs Hari Kishan, Jayna Cc on 23 February, 1996

(4) These judgments have held that (a) general authority given by landlord to tenant to induct sub-tenants is not sufficient in law. The previous consent in writing of landlord in respect to each sub-letting separately is essential and in absence of such consent, (b) landlord is entitled to evict the tenant; consent given by the landlord to sublet premises during subsistence of contractual tenancy cannot be available to tenant after expiry of contractual tenancy. Therefore, on the basis of the settled law, as referred to above, the only option now left with the respondents is to plead that sub-tenancy in favour of respondent No. 5 was not unauthorised and was in accordance with the terms of the lease-deed dated May 30, 1957. The Arc as well as the Rc Tribunal have. on appreciation of evidence, clearly held that respondents 1 to 4 have sublet the demised premises in favour of respondent No. 5 which implies that the sub-letting was more than once and on perusal of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the courts have misread or misconstrued the same and the findings suffer from an error of jurisdiction which calls for interference in the findings of fact as recorded.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Firm M/S Chanan Ram Lal Chand vs Prem Chand And Others on 25 February, 2009

Yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh (dead) v. Dalip Chand and others, reported in 1995(1) RCR 528, affirms the same principle when it said in the context of interpretation under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, that if a sub lease is a ground for eviction, the prior permission granted under the contract after Civil Revision No.1991 of 2001(O&M) -4- the contract had expired could not be pressed into service. This decision squarely answers the point raised by the sub-tenant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - K Kannan - Full Document
1