Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Chander Kishore Sharma And Anr. vs Kampa Wati on 4 July, 1983

Kanhaiya Lal vs Hari Singh on 15 December, 1995

In Chander Kishore v. Smt. Kampa Wati (supra) it was held that what constitutes subletting is a substantial question of law to be determined by the Court and that on the said question second appeal is maintainable before High Court. The question of sub-letting by one to another is a substantial question of law. It was held in this context that onus to prove the sub-letting is heavily on the landlord and a tenant cannot be asked to prove negative and no presumption can be drawn from mere relationship of the parties. It was further held that if a party leads evidence beyond the pleadings, no amount of such evidence can be looked into and it is well settled law that ordinarily nothing which is not pleaded can be proved. Applying the ratio of this decision to this case I am of the opinion that since the pleadings itself are silent on the question of sub-letting, it was not open to the courts below to look into the evidence in absence of pleadings.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sh. Vipin Kalra vs Dr. K.B. Watts on 1 March, 2012

26 Be that as it may, the fact remains that Dr. Ashok Watts, the eldest son, and Dr. Radhika Watts, the eldest daughter­ in­law, were close members of family of respondent. This fact is further demonstrated by copy of the ration card Ex. RW1/6. On this account, their presence in the tenanted premises could not generally be objected to (in view of law in Govindji Khera Vs. Padma Bhatia (supra); Nanakchand Vs. Sansar Chand (supra) & Anr. (supra); Chander Kishore Sharma & Anr. Vs. Kampa Wati (supra) and Dr. Vijay Kumar Vs. Raghbir Singh (supra), unless there was some further material to show that the possession had been parted with.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Parkash vs Kailash Chander And Anr. on 24 August, 1999

17. More close to the facts of the present case is the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Chander Kishore Sharma v. Smt. Kampa Wati, AIR 1984 Delhi 14. The tenanted premises had been taken by the father. He was living with his son. The question arose as to whether when the son had set up his independent business in the suit premises it was subletting or not. It was held that the presumption would be otherwise and the Court went on to conclude as under :--
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - V S Aggarwal - Full Document

Prem Sagar vs Shri Darbari Lal And Ors. on 27 September, 1999

8. Therefore, the consideration of the question narrows down to the point as to whether labourers of the tenant are residing in the premises or not and if so whether the premises can be said to be under non-use or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that it was for the landlord to prove that the contention of the respondent that the labourers are not residing in the premises is wrong. In support of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has cited various authorities. He has cited the case of Chander Kishor Sharma v. Kampa Wati (1984) 1 Rent L.R. 107: (AIR 1984 Delhi 14) wherein it has been held that the initial onus to prove the ground for ejectment lies on the landlord and not on the tenant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Kailash Kumar And Ors. vs R.L. Kapur on 21 April, 1994

(48) In Chand Kishore Sharma Another Vs Smt. Kampa Wati, 1983 (2) Rcr 652, the facts were that the father and son were living and messing together as family and it was found as a fact that father and son have been working together in the shop. On such facts it was held that if son has been allowed to use the shop by the father it cannot be said that father has lost legal possession. The case is based on its own facts.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Kb Watts vs Vipin Kalra on 15 May, 2015

10. The learned ARC vide judgment dated 29th March, 2011 held that indisputably in the year 2003 Dr. K.B. Watts suffered a paralytic attack, however the learned ARC held that it is the case of Vipin Kalra himself that Dr. K.B. Watts had been practicing but due to old age and suffering from paralytic attack he had not been attending the clinic and thus he has sublet assigned or parted with the clinic to his son and daughter-in-law but Vipin Kalra has not been able to prove that Dr. K.B. Watts was charging any rent from Dr. Ashok Watts or Dr. Radhika Watts. Thus the learned ARC held that if the son and daughter-in-law of Dr. K.B. Watts, during a brief period when he had suffered paralytic attack and was confined to bed, had been running the dental clinic in the tenanted premises under the guidance of Dr. CM(M) 390/2012 & RC.REV. 329/2012 Page 6 of 14 K.B. Watts; the same would not amount to subletting, assigning or parting with the possession of tenanted premises. Reliance was placed on Dr. Vijay Singh Vs. Raghbir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2254, Govindji Khera Vs. Padma Bhatia AIR 1972 Delhi 239; Nanakchand Vs. Sansar Chand & Anr. 1983(2)RLR 76; Chander Kishore Sharma & Anr. Vs. Kampa Wati 24 (1983) DLT 316.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 14 - M Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next