Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing S.S. Puri vs S.P. Malhotra on 19 October, 2001

Shri T.B. Jain vs Smt. Savita Ravi And Anr. on 27 February, 2008

S.S. Puri v. S.P. Malhotra in support of his submission that at the stage of considering the aspect of grant of leave, the real test should be whether the facts disclosed in the affidavit seeking leave to defend, prima facie, show that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an order of eviction, and not whether in the end, the defense may fail. It is well to remember that when the leave to defend is refused, serious consequences of eviction follow and the party seeking leave is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments made in the eviction petition by cross-examination.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 12 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Col. Ajai Singh Virk (Retd.) vs M/S Gajanand Hari Shankar on 7 June, 2013

S.S. Puri's case (supra). The petitioner is seeking bona fide need of the entire demised premises which he describes in every detail in the petition. He also relies on the site plan of the demised premises. The present petitioner herein is not seeking partial eviction of the tenant but claims the entire property for his bona fide need. Obviously, he shall not be retaining possession over the premises of Dr. Malwinder Want Kaur at Jalandhar.
Delhi District Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Arjun Uppal vs M/S. Jain Motor Car Company Pvt. Ltd on 28 August, 2015

On behalf of respondent, reliance is placed upon the case laws titled as Santosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran 1 (2001) 1 SCC, Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh (2001) 1 SCC 706, Manoj Kumar Vs. Bihari Lal (Dead) by LRs (2001) 4 SCC 655, Liaq Ahmed & Others Vs. Habeeb-Ur-Rehman (2000) 5 SCC 708, Precision Steel & Engineering Works Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal AIR 1982 SC 1518, S.S. Puri Vs. S.P. Malhotra 95 (2002) DLT 399, Tarun Pahwa Vs. Pradeep Mehin 2013 (1) CLJ 801 Del., Canara Bank Vs. T.T. Ltd. RCR No. 312/13 dated 30.09.2014.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shashikant Dixit vs Renuka Sharma on 5 January, 2026

10. Lastly, relying upon Liaq Ahmed vs. Habeeb-Ur-Rehmaan11, S.S. Puri vs. S.P. Malhotra12 and Sh. Najmul Arafeen Chawla & Anr. vs. Dr. Mohd. Najeeb13, and the Scheme of the DRC Act, Mr. Preet Pal Singh, learned counsel submitted that since the tenant was able to disclose grounds as also prima facie show a cause which was not baseless, unreal, and 10 20l9 (258) DLT 605 11 2000 (5) SCC 708 12 2002 (95) DLT 399 13 2025 (318) DLT 631 RC.REV. 313/2023 Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:05.01.2026 15:15:23 unfounded, the learned RC was obligated to grant the leave to defend against the eviction sought by the landlord.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Karam Singh Sidhu (Nri) on 18 May, 2012

S. S. Puri vs. S. P. Malhotra reported as 2002 (1) Rent Control Reporter 85 and one judgment of this Court namely R. K. Sukhuja vs. Chander Parkash reported as 1991 (1) Rent Law Reporter 398, counsel for the petitioner contended that if prima facie case is made out, then leave to contest the ejectment petition should be granted to the tenant and therefore, should be granted in the instant case to the petitioner.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Shri Awtar Singh & Anr vs Shri Jasbir Singh on 30 March, 2013

8. The respondent has, perforce, argued that even a presence of an intention on the part of the owner landlord of parting with the possession of tenancy premises after having it vacated from lawfully inducted tenant casts doubt upon the bona fide requirement of the petitioners/landlord. In the instant case, the presence of the 'collaboration agreement' and alleged concealment of the same by the petitioners' in their petition under Section 14(i)(e) of the Act is projected as a pointer towards absence of any bona fide requirement on their part. To add to this, it is further argued that the plot wherein the premises in question is situated is measuring 300 sq. yards and by no means it can be said to be insufficient for the petitioners' family members in terms of appropriate and suitable accommodation. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that a triable issue has been definitely made out. To add strength in his argument, Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled 'S.S. Puri v. S.P. Malhotra' reported in 2002 DLT 95 399. In particular para 3 has been relied upon. The same is reproduced as under:
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next