Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
Jagdish Chander Chatterjee & Ors vs Sri Kishan & Anr on 9 August, 1972
objections raising all pleas which the deceased tenant had or could have raised
except those which were personal to the deceased defendant or respondent. In
the instant case Bal Kishan, the appellant could not have, therefore, in the
capacity of the legal representative of the deceased respondent Musadi Lal who
was admittedly a tenant, raised the plea that he was in possession of the
building as a trespasser and the petition for eviction was not maintainable. It is
true that it is possible for the Court in an appropriate case to implead the heirs
of a deceased defendant in their personal capacity also in addition to bringing
them on record as legal representatives of the deceased defendant avoiding
thereby a separate suit for a decision on the independent title as observed
in Jagdish Chander Chatterjee & Ors. v. Sri Kishan & Anr., [1973] 1 S.C.R. 850.
The relevant part of that decision at page 854 reads thus:
Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd., Rourkela on 20 August, 1992
'M/s. Ganon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. v Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(supra) was the case where the Orissa High Court observed that application
under Order 8, Rule 9, CPC cannot be treated as one under Order 6, Rule 17,
CPC as both are contextually different. Inconsistent pleas which are at variance
with plea originally taken in the suit cannot be permitted to be introduced.
State Of Rajasthan vs Mohd.Iqbal . on 19 August, 2015
In the State of Rajasthan and Anr (supra) the Hon'ble Court
observed as follows:
1