Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Mohammad Kasam Haji Gulambhai vs Bakerali Fatehal1 (D) By Lrs on 8 September, 1998

Shankar Lal vs Lrs Of on 14 March, 2019

Thus, the reasons given by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Churu are in fact correct and the judgment shown by the respondent i.e. Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai Vs. Bakerali Fatehali (D) by LRs (supra) clearly holds the tenant-father will be exclusive proprietor and owner of the business and if a subsequent partnership between the sons was executed or any other new business started and even the tenant-father occasionally visiting does not allow him to exercise his rights over the shop. Thus, the sons who were independently conducting their business would entitle the landlord for decree of eviction.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Smt. Probha Chowdhury @ Smt. Probha Devi ... vs Smt. Karabi Ghosh And Ors on 2 April, 2019

In order to substantiate his contention, learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 396 (Bhoirab Ch. Nandan vs. Ranadhi Ch. Dulla) and AIR 1998 SC 3214 (Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai vs. Bakerali Fatehali). In both the decisions, the Supreme Court was pleased to hold that when a tenant 14 parted with possession of the rented accommodation in favour of his brother and son exclusively onus shifts upon the tenant to prove that he did not sublet the suit premises in favour of his brother or son.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document

Unknown vs Shri K.D. Shrama on 29 January, 2021

Reliance is also placed on the decisions in the case of M/s. Udhey Bhan Ashok Kumar & Co. v. Neelam Kumari - CM (Main) No. 172 of 2010 decided on 24.02.2010; PrakashKaur Chadha v. Sudesh RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 11 of 35 Mehta & Ors., 2015 (1) RLR 214; Krishan Lal Aneja Through LRs v. Deepak Kumar Jain & Ors. 2004 (73) DRJ 467; Dr. Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. Raghubir Singh & Ors., 1971 RLE (Note) 123; Kulwant Kaur v. S.P. Bawa, 49 (1993) DLT 37; Dr. (Mrs.) Sushil Puri v. Jai Gopal, 135 (2006) DLT 90; Kailash Chander v. Om Prakash & Anr.,, 2003 (6) Scale 3; Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amar Kaur, (2005) 1 SCC 34; Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai v. Bakerali Fatehali (Dead) by LRs, (1998) 7 SCC 608; Chanderbhan etc.
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Mamta vs Smt. Preeti on 23 May, 2023

In the judgment titled Mohd. Kasam Haji Gulambhai Vs. Bakerali Fatehali, AIR 1998 SC 3214, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that, "Landlord has not to establish ingredients of sub­letting. He is only to show presence of a person other than tenant". The basic principle is that presence of a stranger i.e. a person other than the tenant in the tenanted premises is to be shown by the landlord in order to discharge the initial burden of proof regarding the tenancy.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ravi Parkash And Ors. vs Dewan Chand on 15 December, 1998

Very close to the facts of the present case is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambai v. Bakerali Fatehali (D) by LR.'s, 1998(2) Apex Court Journal, 471; Herein a petition was filed on the ground of sub-letting. The tenant had entered into a partnership with his sons and ultimately retired from partnership handing over premises and business to his sons. There was no proof that lease was taken for benefit of family. It was held that it would amount to unlawful sub-letting. Identical is the position herein. Therefore, the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority requires no disturbance. In the peculiar, facts, since the landlord is a stranger to any arrangement between the tenant and the third person, adverse inference could easily be drawn. The alleged petitioner, Parikshat Kumar was setting up his title in the sense that he is a member of the Hindu Undivided Family who was the tenant. It is incorrect, he is running his own business therein independently and there is thus no escape but to approve the finding of the learned Appellate Authority.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - V S Aggarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next