Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)

G.M. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Sem Tian Exports And Hotels Pvt. Ltd. on 11 March, 2005

"14. In the absence of a contractual period of tenancy, the defendant could continue in possession of the premises but only as a month to month tenant which tenancy was terminable by the Lesser on service of a notice. That such a notice was sent to and I.A. Nos.6403/2011 & 16440/2011 in CS(OS) No.86/2010 Page No.6 of 8 received by the lessee is not disputed. Even the validity of the said notice is not in dispute before me. If that be so, there is nothing left to be tried, examined or determined in the suit in so far as the same prays for a decree for possession against the defendant. The provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC are, therefore, squarely applicable, entitling the plaintiff to a judgment in its favor to the extent the said judgment can be sustained on admissions made by the defendant."
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Uptron Powertronics Ltd. vs Shri G.L. Rawal on 26 July, 1999

(ii) Uptron Powertronics Ltd. Vs. Sh. G.L. Rawal, 1999 IV AD (Del) 861, wherein a suit for possession, mesne profits and damages was filed. Before the issues were framed, the plaintiff in that case moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 praying that in view of admissions made by the defendant, no evidence was required to be led and a decree may be passed for possession. The learned Division Bench observed that the lease was for a period of three years and renewal of the same was not registered. Hence, the lease became a lease on month to month basis under the Transfer of Property Act and was terminated in accordance with law under Section 106 of the same Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 25 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1