Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.37 seconds)The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 6A in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr. on 17 March, 1999
In the
case of Vidhyadhar (Supra) relied upon by learned defence
counsel, defendant no.1 had claimed that transaction of sale
between plaintiff and defendant no.2 was sham and bogus
whereas mortgage deed executed in his favour by defendant no.2
was in fact an outright sale. According to the plaintiff, in that
case, the sale deed had been executed by defendant no.2 in his
favour i.e. in favour of the plaintiff. However, in that case,
defendant No.1 did not enter the witness box. In this fact situation
when question of intention of the parties at the time of entering
into the said transaction was most important, it was held that on
account of non-examination of defendant no.1, that an adverse
inference had to be drawn against him I state that in the peculiar
facts and circumstances, of the present case, discussed in this
paragraph as also the previous paragraph mentioned above, this
judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case and is
clearly distinguishable.
Smt. Sarabati Devi & Anr vs Smt. Usha Devi on 6 December, 1983
30. Now in the instant case, by virture of Ex.PW1/DX-1,
the said Smt. Santosh Suneja constituted the present plaintiff as
her nominee as mentioned therein and specifically stated that she
had no interest in the suit flat. Hon'ble Supreme Court while
dealing with the question of receipt of amount of insurance of a
deceased assured, in the case of Sarbati Devi Vs. Usha Devi 1984
RLR 1 held that in the absence of a Will, the nominee receives the
insured sum as an agent of the heirs of the deceased. Looked at
this way, plaintiff at least could be said to be agent of the said Smt.
Santosh Suneja. So, in the face of the aforesaid law when applied
to the facts of the present case mentioned above, notice Ex.PW1/7
cannot be said to be defective. I have no manner of doubt that
notice to quit, Ex.PW1/7 issued on behalf of plaintiff, was valid.
Finding of Ld. Trial Court in this regard in the impugned
judgment while deciding issue no.1 is erroneous and is therefore
set-aside.
O.P. Bahal vs B.A.K. Sharoff on 3 August, 1972
To the same
effect is the law laid down in the case of O.P. Bahal Vs. A.K.
Shroff, 1973 RLR N 17, wherein it was held that a notice sent by
post under postal certificate carries presumption under Section 114
Smt. Phool Rani Trivedi, W/O Late ... vs Shri Sheel Chandra, S/O Late Shri L. ... on 27 April, 2004
42. Resultantly the present appeal stands allowed. It is held
36 Of 37
37
that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of the
suit flat bearing No. 605, Eros Apartments, 56, Nehru Place, New
Delhi-110 019 and the defendant would handover the possession
thereof within one month failing which, as observed in the case of
Phool Rani (Supra), defendant would be liable to pay
damages/mesne profits to the plaintiff @ Rs.20,000/- per month.
Plaintiff would also be entitled to grant of costs throughout.
Findings of learned trial Court on issue nos. 1,3,8 & 9 recorded in
the impugned judgment, being erroneous are therefore set aside
whereas its findings on other issues mentioned above stand
affirmed. The aforesaid reply and objection petition of the
defendant therefore stand dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.