Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.58 seconds)
Kanchan Kumar vs Roshan Lal on 29 April, 2026 cites

Smt. Kanchan Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh 24 Wpc/2851/2018 ... on 10 October, 2018

27. With respect to ownership of petitioners to the suit property and landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, there are no reservations in saying that both the aforesaid factors are duly admitted at part of the respondent and there is no dispute regarding the same. At the same time, the sequence adopted by the respondent to present his version with respect to these factors is also relevant to be discussed. In his application seeking leave to defend, respondent had denied the ownership of petitioners to the suit property as well as the landlord-tenant relationship between them. It is further relevant to state that, vide order dated 05.08.2020, the application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of respondent had been allowed nevertheless, it was held that there is no triable issue in the present matter with respect to ownership of petitioners to the suit property and landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The said finding was never challenged by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent again RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 17 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:35 +0530 denied these factors, albeit in a very evasive manner, in his written statement and eventually, legal heir of respondent, though his testimony as RW-1 duly admitted the factors under discussion in his cross examination.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sunder Singh Talwar vs Kamal Chand Dugar on 11 April, 2018

36.2 It is also the settled law that the petitioner is not required to state the exact business which is proposed to be carried out from the tenanted premises. Further, even if the purpose is stated in the petition, petitioner is not bound by the same and can later use the premises for some other purpose. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Sunder Singh Talwar Vs. Kamal Chand Dugar, 2018 SCC Online Del 8376.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 19 - J Nath - Full Document

Sushila Devi vs Raghunandan Pershad on 23 January, 1996

In case titled "Sushila Devi & Ors. Vs. Raghunandan Pershad & RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 29 of 32 Digitally signed Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:32:28 +0530 Ors.", 1996(1) RCR 359, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that, in case of bona fide requirement, non-examination of the landlord would be of no consequence where there are facts and circumstances available on record in support of the case of the landlord. Where the father appeared as a witness to prove the need of his son, who was practicing as a medical doctor at some other place, it was held that father's statement was sufficient and non-appearance of son as witness was not fatal.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 9 - J B Goel - Full Document
1   2 Next