Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.02 seconds)
Documents citing Man Mohan Mehra vs J.S. Butalia on 4 July, 1983

Sh. Vinod Kumar vs Smt. Satinder Kaur on 1 October, 2013

(1) Kanwal Narain Vs. L.F. Tellis 1984 RLR 10 (2) V.B. Raju Vs. Joginder Singh 1982 RLR 650 (3) Des Raj Vs. Joginder Singh 1984 RLR (N) 33 (4) Sham Lal Vs. Om Prakash Gupta 1979 (2) RCR 305 (5) J.L. Mehta Vs. Smt. Hira Devi 1990 DLT (Vol.VI) 484 (6) Ram Gopal Vs. Washeshwar Nath 16 (1979) DLT 215 (7) Smt. Ram Chameli Vs. Smt. Sujan Kaur &Anr. 81 (1999) DLT ARCT-45/2013 Page 15/17 549 (8) Man Mohan Mehra Vs. J.S. Butalia 1983 (2) RCR 456 and (9) Parvesh Kanta Vs. Vijay Kumar 81 (1999) DLT 374 would include the bonafide need of the dependent of the landlord also, the contention of the appellant herein that the eviction petition was not maintainable cannot be accepted.
Delhi District Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.K. Gambhir vs T.R. Pahwa And Ors. on 13 February, 1986

The argument no doubt quite specious on its face does not bear a moment's scrutiny. As observed earlier, carrying out annual repairs incurring expenditure on the maintenance of the demised premises is a question of fact and without such a plea being there, it cannot be readily assumed that he must have carried out annual repairs maintenance of the demised premises. Instances are galore where people lay fantastic claims or even false claims in order to derive benefit under the cloak of an agreement. The decision in Manmohan Mehra v. J. S. Butalia, , is of absolutely no avail to the appellant because the said authority deals with a case where a plea was not specifically made and yet it was covered by an issue by implication and the parties went to trial knowing well that the said plea was involved in the trial. In the said case, all the material facts had been stated and what was lacking was a mere repetition of the words of the statutory provision viz. clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1). The position in the instant case is altogether different.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rup Chand vs Shanti Devi on 2 April, 1987

(24) In Man Mohan Mehra v. J.S. Butalia, , Mr.Justice M.L. Jain referred to the earlier decisions and was of the view that an application cannot be thrown out if the cause of action can be implied or if it is partly pleaded. The omission can be rectified by supplying better particulars or in the replication or by way of amendment. In that case the learned Judge was of the view that the application could not be rejected or dismissed even though it failed to allege all the ingredients of section 14(l)(e) of the Act and even though the objection was taken in the written statement because all the grounds are implied in the various facts stated in the application and there was no need of any amendment, and at any rate, the replication specifically contained all the averments and is a part of the pleadings.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Keshav Metal Works And Anr. vs Jitender Kumar Verma on 15 December, 1993

(21) In the cases relied by Mr. Lekhi namely Dr. Mrs. N.D.Kanan, Mr. Edwin Brave and Radha Mohan, the tenant had raised the objection about the maintainability of the petition at the first available opportunity. This objection was taken either in the written statement or ill the leave to defend application. Hence the observation in those cases are of no help to the petitioner because he never look this plea before the trial court. Moreover the view expressed in those cases was distinguished in subsequent cases of this court, namely, Man mohan Mehra (Supra), Arvind Berry V. Admiral A.P.S. bindra (Supra), and Rup Chand V. Shanti Devi reported in 1987 Dlt (32) 269.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Raj Rani vs Gian Chand on 25 February, 1986

(31) His Lordship adhered to this view consistently in his various decisions. (Sec Ram Gopal v. Washeshwar Nath, , Manmohan Mehra v. J. S. Butalia, and Kanwal Narain v. l.f. Tellis, 1984 Rlr 10). The gist of these authorities is that (a) the rule that no Amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was not put forward is not absolute and the general application of this rule may result in Lordship if not injustice ; and (b) to insist upon the reproduction of what the provisions of the statute are, is to ask the applicant to plead law. At any rate, such an omission can be allowed to be rectified by replication, by better particulars or by an amendment and in any event, an application cannot be thrown out if there is a partial disclosure of cause of action.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Kanwal Narain vs L.F. Tellis on 29 September, 1983

(12) As will presently appear, the rule is not absolute and a general application of this rule may result in hardship if not in injustice. As regards non-disclosure of cause of action, I have said in M.M. Mehra v. J.S. Butalia, Cr 268/83 (1983. Raj. LR. 711) that to insist upon the reproduction of what the provisions of the statute are, is to ask the applicant to plead law. Moreover, such an omission can be allowed to be rectified by replication, by better particulars or by an amendment and in any event, an application cannot be thrown out if there is a partial disclosure of cause of action.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Good Samaritan Education Society vs State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2008

(?wle,1.,.1v>iafi&#)"éis<1!nv '{°0'I°S WWW wawowms 5193908 E'3"°F19°'9P'£{ 3?'-W'{C3 95-NS 95 xxnamfizzf 1-1 X.nz:s.~.:-.393 st; Jig 'V; I9 910I93U'¢B '"?"99T9?{'I¥'{D % iW°*I°S Wind Hams) Kwsws uosmnpa nap-tea) se .mmm:>I esivun 3 xuepzma ss; 53 axofefiucg 'zsad mid efitmumxqng 'muqaxann H = jfitoetzos ostqna W N} &w:=>os uotxvmvg wnuwattsw Man vs HMEA N HIQWW-19$S 9:! £8 amgefiueg '£1;';3 9§u(3.I;':>9[f§ 'mfio; eppog xeuoguxad seseaz ugsguapuodsaqg » " "
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - H G Ramesh - Full Document

Swadesh Bhushan Gupta vs Krishan Kumar Gupta on 27 March, 2008

12. It has further been argued by the counsel for the respondent that the daughter of the petitioner Anjali is earning separately and is having a separate business and cannot be counted as a family member 13 of the petitioner. However, I do not find myself in agreement with the arguments of the counsel for the respondent. For the purposes of determining whether a person is dependent upon landlord while considering petition u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act, it has to be seen whether the said person is dependent upon the landlord for the purposes of residence or not. Even if a person is financially independent and is having separate income, he still may be considered as dependent upon the landlord for the purposes of residence, if he is residing as a family member of the landlord. I am supported in my views by the judgement of our own High Court in Manmohan Mehra, Vs. J.S. Butalia, 1983(2) RLR, 625 wherein it was held that even if the children of the landlord are earning independently but for residence they are dependent upon the parents and the parents need the help of such children in old age and ailment and the need of such children would fall within the terms of need of family. Hence, the requirements of the daughter of the petitioner or her family members who are residing with the petitioner have to be taken into consideration as they are residing along with the petitioner as his family members. Even otherwise, the respondent in his counter-affidavit has made contradictory statements with regard to Anjali. In para 8, it has been stated that Anjali and her son are living on the second floor of 14 the suit property but in para 9 it has been stated that Anjali has been remarried and is now with her husband at Uttam Nagar. The second floor of the house is thus available to the landlord. This shows that respondent himself is not sure as to what defence he has to adopt and he is taking self-contradictory defences.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next