Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Bhawani Shankar Sharma vs On The Death Of Jugal Kishore Garodia His ... on 6 July, 1984

Ram Karanji More vs Keshardev Jalan on 7 June, 1996

In the case of Bnawani Sankar v. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1985 Gau 18, court held, on materials on record, that technically the rent would fall due on expiry of the last date of the month of tenancy. The question when the rent fall due would also depend upon other factors also. The landlord may agree, in consideration of some situation that tenant might pay sometime at his convenience. The exhibits show that in all such accumulated payment of rent it varied from 2 to 5 months. It is also seen that the petitioner deposited rent in Court on monthly basis. The admitted position on record that out of exhibitted rent receipts 90% related to the monthly payment of rent. Further as stated above the petitioner in his written statement contended that he was allowed to pay at his convenience, but not beyond five months at a time since he had no source of fixed income at that time (underline supplied) with a big family. It is also admitted that he on his own by and large paid the rent regularly, though it was never the essence of the agreement of lease.
Gauhati High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ravi Shanker vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board ... on 18 September, 2013

16. To prove his case, it is stated by PW Ravi Shankar in his affidavit that her grandmother, Smt. Imarti Devi was allotted the suit property by DDA and she was exclusive owner of the same. It is further stated by PW1 that Smt. Imarti Devi during her life time executed a Will dated 24.07.1995 duly registered with the office of Sub Registrar whereby she had bequeathed the suit property solely to him and by virtue of the Will, he became the owner of the suit property on the demise of Smt. Imarti Devi on 22.01.1996. It is further stated that the defendant no.2, Smt. Laxmi Devi is the CS No: 271/08 Page 8/18 daughter of Smt. Imarti and she has no right, title or interest in the suit property. It is further stated that the defendant no.2 is in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the suit property and sold out the same to the defendant no.3, Smt. Sanjana Tripathi after violating the injunction order passed by the Court of Ms. Jyoti Kler, Civil Judge, Delhi in the suit entitled Ravi Shankar v. Smt. Laxmi Devi. It is further stated by PW1 that he filed a petition for Probate of the Will dated 24.07.1995 and the said petition has been allowed by the Court of Shri V.K. Gupta, ADJ, Delhi vide order dated 03.11.2007. It is further stated that by PW1 that he has already filed a suit for declaration, possession and injunction against the defendant no.2 with regard to the suit property. It is further stated that by PW1 that he came to know on 07.12.2006 that the defendant no.2 is intending to get transfer of the suit property in her name. It is further stated by PW1 that he requested the defendant no.2 to withdraw her application for mutation and also approached the defendant no.1 to desist from transferring the suit property in the name of the defendant no.2 but the defendant no.1 in collusion and connivance with the defendant no.2 transferred the suit property in the name of the defendant no.2. It is further stated that by PW1 that he had also applied for mutation in his favour on 03.09.2007 but the defendant no.1 has refused to mutate the suit property in name of the plaintiff. It is further stated by PW1 that he visited the office of the defendant no.1 and also got issued legal notice for cancellation of the mutation but in vain. It is further stated that the act of mutation of the suit CS No: 271/08 Page 9/18 property in the name of the defendant no.2 is illegal, unauthorized, improper, malafide and violative of the policies of the defendant no. 1 itself. It is further stated that the defendant no.1 has not obtained no objection from the other sons and daughters of Smt. Imarti Devi and even did not consider the facts regarding pendency of mutation application on behalf of the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Laxmi Devi vs Sh. Ravi Shankar on 29 July, 2011

6. The plaintiff examined three Pws in all. He himself entered the witness box as PW1 and testified on oath, all the averments, made by him in the suit. He brought on record the certified copy of the Will of Late Smt. Imarati Devi dated 24.07.1995 in favour of the plaintiff as Exh. PW1/1, the death certificate of Late Smt. Imarati Devi as Exh. PW1/2. The site plan, showing the suit property is Exh. PW1/3, the possession slip, issued by the DDA in favour of late Smt. Imarati Devi in respect of the suit proerty is Exh PW1/4, the certified copy of the statement of Sh. Mahender Kumar Sharma, UDC, who appeared in another suit titled as Ravi Shankar Vs. Laxmi Devi, preferred by the plaintiff, seeking the possession of the suit premises is Exh. PW1/5. The certified coy of the order dated 03.11.2007, vide which the petition for probate in respect of the Will, preferred by the plaintiff, has been allowed has been brought on record as Exh. PW1/6. The certified copy of the plaint of the suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property, preferred by the plaintiff and presently pending in the Court of Sh. Dharmender Rana, Ld. CJ, Delhi is Exh. PW1/7, the certified copy of another suit, preferred by the plaintiff against the defendant, for injunction, for restraining the defendant from making any illegal and unauthorized construction, additions and RCA No. 55/10 page no.3/7 alterations in the suit property is Exh. PW1/8, wherein the defendant has given a statement in favour of the plaintiff that she will not raise any construction, additions and alterations in the suit property, which has been brought on record as Exh. PW1/9. He also testified on oath that the above suit was disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2003, passed b y the Court of Sh. Sanjay Jindal, Ld. CJ, Delhi, copy of which has been brought on record as Exh. PW1/10. He also deposed that in the vicinity, such similarly suit properties were fetches a rent @ Rs.3000/- p.m and therefore, the plaintiff was liable to fetch the mesne profits/damages @ Rs. 3000/- p.m, for the period prayed for.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1