Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 256 (1.77 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Narain Arora vs Asha Rani & Ors on 31 August, 1998

Sh. Hemant Kumar Verma vs Sh. Madan Khurana on 24 July, 2012

So far as the ratio of judgments mentioned at S.No. 1 i.e. Santhosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran 2000(3) CCC 178 SC, at S. No. 2 i.e. Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and others AIR 1998 SC 3012, at S. No. 3 i.e. Puran Chand & Anr. Vs. Yaspal 113 (2004) DLT 421 as well as at S. No. 11 i.e. Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Subhash Chand Aggarwal RC.REV No. 127/2011 concerned, are also not applicable to the given facts & circumstances of the present case as even in the present leave to defend application there is no where objection has been taken that the present petition has been filed for the additional accommodation rather the respondent contested the present eviction petition on the ground that the premises in question is not suitable for the residence purpose as the whole area is notified for mix land use.
Delhi District Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Hemant Kumar Verma vs Sh. Jasbir Singh S/O Late Sh. Hari Singh on 24 July, 2012

So far as the ratio of judgments mentioned at S.No. 1 i.e. Santhosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran 2000(3) CCC 178 SC, at S. No. 2 i.e. Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and others AIR 1998 SC 3012, at S. No. 3 i.e. Puran Chand & Anr. Vs. Yaspal 113 (2004) DLT 421 as well as at S. No. 11 i.e. Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Subhash Chand Aggarwal RC.REV No. 127/2011 concerned, are also not applicable to the given facts & circumstances of the present case as even in the present leave to defend application there is no where objection has been taken that the present petition has been filed for the additional accommodation rather the respondent contested the present eviction petition on the ground that the premises in question is not suitable for the residence purpose as the whole area is notified for mix land use.
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs Madhurbhashani & Ors vs Ranjit Sing on 2 July, 2025

38. For the sake of completeness, it may also be recorded that the respondents had contended that the petitioners were not owners of the subject premises, and that therefore they were not landlords. This objection was based on the respondents‟ allegation that the petitioners had acquired title to the subject premises under a family settlement entered into in the course of a partition suit; and that the family 14 Ram Narain Arora vs. Asha Rani, (1999) 1 SCC 141, para 11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing Date:02.07.2025 14:36:00 RC.REV. 95/2014 & RC.REV. 112/2014 Page 16 of 19 settlement and partition decree had been challenged by one of the family members of the petitioners.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A J Bhambani - Full Document

Rajni Bahl(Since Deceased) Thr Lrs vs Arun Kumar Nayyar on 22 November, 2023

"32. As far as the contention of the counsel for the petitioner / tenant, of the respondent / landlord in the petition for eviction having not disclosed the allotment at Holambi Kalan is concerned. Supreme Court in Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani (1999) 1 SCC 141 held that the non-disclosure of accommodation which the Court also agrees cannot be alternate suitable accommodation, cannot be fatal to the petition for eviction.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Praveen & Anr vs Mulak Raj & Ors on 6 December, 2023

"32. As far as the contention of the counsel for the petitioner / tenant, of the respondent / landlord in the petition for eviction having not disclosed the allotment at Holambi Kalan is concerned. Supreme Court in Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani (1999) 1 SCC 141 held that the non-disclosure of accommodation which the Court also agrees cannot be alternate suitable accommodation, cannot be fatal to the petition for eviction.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next