Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)
Courts vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. (Dcm ... on 2 April, 2011 cites

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004

In my considered view the ruling Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd (supra) has allowed the power of attorney holder to depose on the basis of his own knowledge but he cannot depose the facts which are not in his personal knowledge. This ruling is applicable to the facts of the present case because PW­1, power of attorney holder of petitioner, has proved his power of attorney Ex. PW­1/1 executed by the petitioner in his favour. PW­1 has deposed all the facts which were in his knowledge and the respondents could not bring to show that those facts were not in his knowledge. It is important to mention here that the present petition is u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act on the grounds of subletting. The relationship of landlord and tenant between parties is not in dispute. The fact which has to be proved by the petitioner is only that the respondent no. 1 has sublet, assigned or parted with the possession of the suit premises to sub tenant. The respondent no. 1 has admitted that respondent no. 2 is in possession of the suit premises but not in exclusive possession and the control over the suit premises is of the respondent no. 1. It is well settled law that when possession of third party is admitted by a tenant then burden //22// lies on him to prove that the third party is not a subtenant and in such circumstances the evidence of the landlord is not of much importance. In the case in hand the respondents have failed to discharge the burden that respondent no. 2 is agent of respondent no. 1 and working for and on behalf of respondent no. 1. Considering all these aspects, there is no merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the evidence of the attorney of the petitioner cannot be read in evidence and he is not a competent witness. In view of the abvoe discussions, it is established by the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the suit premises to respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 is in exclusive possession of the suit premises. Hence, the petitioner has proved the ground u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act and the petition u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act is allowed and an eviction order is passed in respect of the suit premises consisting of shop no. 4,5,15 & 16 in property no. 2492­96, Gali No. 8­9, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi­110005.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1219 - H K Sema - Full Document

M/S Bharat Sales Ltd vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 5 February, 1998

19. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sales Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) that "sub­tenancy or sub­letting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord, in the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the demised property. It is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the tenant and the sub­tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sub­let had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub­lease. It may be paid in //19// cash or in kind or may have been paid or promised to be paid. It may have been paid in lump­sum in advance covering the period for which the premises is let out or sub­let or it may have been paid or promised to be paid periodically. Since payment of rent or monetary consideration may have been made secretly, the law does not require such payment to be proved by affirmative evidence and the court is permitted to draw its own inference upon the facts of the case proved at the trial, including the delivery of exclusive possession to infer that the premises were sub­let".
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 235 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Shri Atul Gupta And Ors. vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. And ... on 7 January, 1991

However, I find that the ruling Sh. Atul Gupta and Others Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in the case in hand the petitioner has taken a plea that the agency agreement RW­2/1 is merely an eye wash and a sham document and cannot be relied upon. I find force in this plea of the petitioner. Just merely recording the terms of an agency agreement in black & white does not make the agreement reliable unless and until its terms and conditions are followed by both the parties. A tenant cannot be permitted to retain the tenanted premises just for the shake of his convenience particularly when he is not in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises and is not bothered to follow the terms and condition of the agency agreement.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Associated Hotels Of India Ltd vs R. N. Kapoor on 19 May, 1959

16. In case of subletting the presumption is drawn, if the landlord prima facie shows the presence of a third person in the premises that he is a sub tenant, however, the presumption is rebuttable. It was held in Associated hotel of India Ltd. Vs. R.N.Kapoor, AIR 1959, Supreme Court 1959 that if a party gets exclusive possession of the property, prima facie he is considered to be a tenant but circumstances may be established which negative the intention to create a lease. In a suit by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground of subletting the landlord discharges the onus by leading //12// evidence showing that occupants are in exclusive possession of apartments for valuable consideration. It is for the tenant to rebutt that prima facie evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 370 - S K Das - Full Document

Shah Phoolchand Lalchand vs Parvathi Bai on 2 February, 1989

Similarly, the above sated clause 10, 11 and 15 of agreement Ex. RW­2/1 were never complied by the respondent no. 1 and 2. From the deposition of RW­2, it is proved that he is not maintaining any account as an agent of the respondent no. 1 company and he is in exclusive possession of the suit premises. Neither respondent no. 1 nor respondent no. 2 has produced any document to prove that the respondent no. 2 has been working as an agent of respondent no. 1. It was held in Shah Phool Chand Lalchand Vs. Parvathi Bai (supra) that where no documents such as Income tax returns, assessment orders as well as account books and ledgers for the relevant period were produced by the tenants, it was surely open to the trial court from these circumstances to come to the conclusion that had the account books and ledger been produced, they would have shown that rent was received by the appellants (tenant) from M/s Adeshwar Glass Mart (sub tenant) which would justify the finding of the subletting.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 25 - M H Kania - Full Document
1