Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Kailash Chand Jain vs Gayatri Devi Bhargava on 29 August, 1971

Mahesh Chander Kumar vs Bhagwan Singh Saini on 3 July, 2023

reported in AIR 1966 SC 1361 to submit that where the tenant is in possession of only a portion of the premises, the learned Trial Court is under an obligation to apportion the rent in respect of the portion in possession of the tenant only. Applying the same to his case, Mr. Suri submits that since the petitioner claims to be without possession of the subject suit property, the learned Trial Court is under an obligation to suspend the sentence till such time the Trial Court apportions the rent in accordance with the possession. To Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR CM(M) 701/2023 Page 6 of 18 Signing Date:04.07.2023 15:54:10 the same effect, learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of this Court in "Kailash Chand vs. Gayatri Devi Bhargava" reported in 1973 9 DLT 409.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - T R Gedela - Full Document

Apparel Trends & Anr. vs Krishna Dandona And Ors. on 5 September, 1984

(13) It seems to be a well settled law that in case a tenant is deprived of any part of the tenanted premises or a landlord without just and sufficient cause cuts off or withholds any supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the premises let to him the tenant can claim suspension of rent or claim abatement of the rent in proportion to the extent and nature of deprivation of the demised premises or the essential supplies. See Kailash Chand Jain v. Smt. Gayatri Devi Bhargava, 1973 Delhi Law Times p. 407, Ved Rattan and Brothers v. Janak Raj, 1979(1) Rent Control Reporter p. 106; N.K. Baslas v. Krishan Lal, 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter p. 14,; Hakim Sardar Bahadur v. Shri Tej Parkash Singh, 1962 Punjab Law Reporter 538 and Surendra Nath Bibray. Stephen Court Ltd., .
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Parwati Devi vs Madhu Manak Lata on 13 April, 2009

Defendant in her written statement admitted relationship of landlord and tenant. She also admitted her liability to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month. There is also an admission in her written statement that rent was paid only upto August, 2005 and there is no dispute that thereafter no rent was paid. There is also no dispute of the fact that during the pendency of the suit, MCD sealed the premises on 16-10-2007. Other disputed facts what was the exact rate of rent, whether rent deed was got signed from the defendant by playing fraud, whether civil court has jurisdiction or not etc. are matters which are to be decided after the trial. But at this stage, admissions made by the parties in their pleadings are sufficient to decide the application moved. I have heard counsel for both parties. Counsel for appellant cited case law Kailash Ch. Jain vs. Gyatri Devi 1973 RLR (Note) 81.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Salochana Aggarwal vs M/S. Vanshis Stores Pvt. Ltd on 17 October, 2017

DW1/C1)   contains   clear   mention   that   as   on   the   date   of inspection i.e. on 04.03.2010, there had been no seepage in the suit property which could have prevented the defendant from running   the   business   activities.     Also   no   furniture   of   the defendant   was   found   damaged.     It   is   fact   of   the   matter   that tenanted suit property was well inspected by defendant prior to taking said premises on   rent, as is borne out from lease deed Ex. P2 and even in cross­examination of DW1 that two months time was taken to make the tenanted suit property suitable to run his business in the month of October 2008 for his Show room purposes.   Afore elicited report of Local Commissioner simply finds mention of observation of sum dampness on some portion of rear wall of basement which could be easily rectified. Same can not be made a premise by defendant for invocation of doctorine of suspension of rent as alleged by defendant relying upon   the   law     laid   in   the   cases   of   (i)  Kailash   Chand   Jain (supra);   (ii)  Ved   Rattan   and   Bros.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gayatri W/O Sh. Kailash Saini vs Kailash Saini S/O Sh. Kaluram Saini on 28 November, 2022

1. This transfer application has been filed by applicant-wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of divorce petition No. 38/2022 titled as Kailash Saini Vs. Gayatri, filed by non-applicant-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 form the learned District and Session Judge No.1, Sambhar Lake District -Jaipur to Sikar.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Jain - Full Document
1