Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Mohan Sons (Bombay) Private Ltd. vs Lady Sonoo Jamatji Jejeebhoy And Ors. on 24 October, 1974
Circumstances show that the defendant had been given
permissive user of the suit property only in his capacity as an
employee of MGF and his personal attachment as a driver of
D.R. Gupta who was a resident of 4, University Road, New Delhi
in whose residential block these servant quarters are located; in
no manner can it be said that there was any intention to create a
lease; judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the
respondent in M/s Mohan Sons (Bombay) Private Ltd (Supra)
and Associated Hotels of India Ltd. (Supra) have no application
to the facts of the case. The impugned judgment reversing the
finding of Trial Judge without any cogent reason was a
perversity. It calls for an interference.
Associated Hotels Of India Ltd vs R. N. Kapoor on 19 May, 1959
Circumstances show that the defendant had been given
permissive user of the suit property only in his capacity as an
employee of MGF and his personal attachment as a driver of
D.R. Gupta who was a resident of 4, University Road, New Delhi
in whose residential block these servant quarters are located; in
no manner can it be said that there was any intention to create a
lease; judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the
respondent in M/s Mohan Sons (Bombay) Private Ltd (Supra)
and Associated Hotels of India Ltd. (Supra) have no application
to the facts of the case. The impugned judgment reversing the
finding of Trial Judge without any cogent reason was a
perversity. It calls for an interference.
Rajendra Singh Yadav vs Chandra Sen And Ors. on 26 October, 1978
9 On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that
documents Ex.D-1 to D-3 are clearly forged and fabricated; it is
pointed out that these documents had seen the light of the day
for the first time when they were confronted to PW-2 in his
cross-examination; it is pointed out that these documents did not
find mention in the reply filed by the defendant (dated
15.05.1973) where although defendant had taken up the plea
that his father Yad Ram was a tenant in the suit premises yet he
had failed to disclose what is the rate of rent or since when his
deceased father was the tenant. It is pointed out that evidence
which is contrary to the pleadings cannot be read. To support
this proposition, reliance has been placed upon the judgment
reported in AIR 1979 SC 882 Rajender Singh Yadav Vs. Chandra
Sen and other. Reliance on the aforenoted documents in the
impugned judgment is clearly a perversity; finding in the
impugned judgment calls for an interference.
10 Arguments have been rebutted. Attention has been drawn
to Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
referred as the „Code‟). It is pointed out that pleadings have to
RSA No.135/2010 Page 5 of 12
be specific and evidence does not form a part of the pleadings. It
is pointed out that the finding in the impugned judgment calls
for no interference.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 45 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 50 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
1