Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.45 seconds)
Jagatjit Industries Ltd. vs Sh. Rajiv Gupta on 25 September, 1980 cites

Hari Shankar vs Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury on 5 December, 1961

while dealing with Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 referred to its earlier judgment Had Shankar & Other (Supra) and observed, "It is neither possible nor advisable to define with precision the scope and ambit of section 35 of the Act, but it should be left to the High Court to consider in each case whether the impugned judgment is according to law or not, as explained by this court in the said judgment".
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 216 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs Satyawati Sod And Ors. on 20 December, 1971

The Full Bench of this Court in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs. Smt. Satyawati Sood and others. observed, " It is well known that parties enter into oral agreements or informal agreements. But even if all the terms are so agreed, the parties intend to reduce the agreement to a formal document. If such is the intention of the parties then it is the formal document and not the anterior oral or informal agreements which would constitute ihe legal transaction or act-in-law.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors. vs N.K. (P) Ltd. And Ors. on 30 October, 1970

This again is to be found from the intention of the parties in a particular case (Union of India vs. N.K. (P) Ltd., 2nd (1971) 1 Delhi 355). In view of the numerous complicated perceis terms of the lease with legal implications in the present case, we are of the view that the transaction of lease was entered into only by the letters in question and not by the previous oral agreement, if any."
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs Chandrakant M. Patel & Ors on 4 February, 1974

This may be so but the question is when a father desires his son to shift to his own property, is it advisable for a son to say, 'No' or to come in conflict with his father by refusing to vacate the premises. If the son has no right to occupy the property of his father it cannot be said that he has get suitable accommodation for his residence. Before determining whether a landlord has accommodation for h's residence it must be determined whether he has a right to remain in occupation of the existing premises, ff he has no right it cannot be said that he has suitable accommodation with him. The Supreme Court in Ihirose Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel and Ors., observed, "If a person is in occupation of the other premises on leave and license, they are obviously not available to the landlord for occupation and cannot be taken into account for negativing the need of the landlord for the premises in question". In the present case before me the respondent-landlord is at best in occupation of the premises of his father on leave and license basis. If the respondent himself is on leave and license basis, the tenant cannot resist the respondent's claim for eviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 103 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

S. Sanyal vs Gian Chand on 14 September, 1967

In Miss S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand, it has been held, " The contract of tenancy is a single and indivisible contract, and in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect it is not open to the court to divide it into two contracts". No law has been brought to my notice under which the tenancy in question can be divided into two contracts. Although the requirement of the respondent can be satisfied by passing an eviction order with respect to first floor and the second floor of the suit property but in law it is not possible to divide the tenancy contract. In the result the respondent landlord is entitled to an order of eviction with respect to the entire property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 60 - J C Shah - Full Document

Sallomal vs Smt. Naina Baj (Died) And Ors. on 12 July, 1978

Further this authority was held to be not good law by Allahabad High Court itself in Sallomal vs. Smt. Naina Bai and others, . Under Section 49 of the Registration Act a document compulsorily registerable, if unregistered, is inadmissible in evidence of a transaction affecting immovable property. The term regarding notice of eviction is a term which affects the immoveable property. The main purpose of this term is as to when the tenant; can be required to deliver possession of the tenancy premises. Assuming for the sake of argument, that this term No. 2 is admissible in evidence being a collateral transaction as alleged by the petitioner tenant, I am still of the view that the petitioner cannot derive any advantage out of it. According to this term tenancy is for a fixed period of 11 months After the expiry of fixed period of 11 months the tenancy stands determined under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of property Act by efflux of time.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1