Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 59 (0.26 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Nidhi vs Ram Kripal Sharma (D) Thr. Lrs on 7 February, 2017
In Nidhi Vs. Ram Kripal Sharma Through LRs Decided on
7.02.2017, AIR 2017 SC 814, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that the Court has the power to take note of the subsequent events and to
mould the relief accordingly.
Mohd.Ismail vs Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar on 28 October, 2009
In Mohd. Ismail vs Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar, (2009) 10 SC
1937, it was held by the Hon'ble Court that the respondent can amend
his pleadings in case of subsequent events.
Jai Prakash Gupta (D) Thr.Lrs vs Riyaz Ahamad & Anr on 28 October, 2009
In Jai Prakash Gupta vs Riyaz Ahmed & Another AIR 2009 10
SC 197, the following observations were made :-
Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987
"4. I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully
examined the judgment under challen12 ptge as also the
material on record. As regards the contentions raised by
counsel for the petitioner challenging the Will, the law
has since been crystalised by the Supreme Court in Smt.
Shanti Sharma vs. Smt.Ved Prabha, as also in Sheela and
others vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, . Once the
landlord has been able to show that there is a testament in
his favor, the landlord is deemed to have discharged his
burden of ownership, vis-a-vis, the Rent Control Act. In
the present case, the landlord has been able to prove that a
testament has been made in his favor by the previous
owner which, at best, could be challenged by the heirs of
Smt. Saroj Mohan and certainly not by the tenant. In this
view of the matter I hold that the objection of the
petitioner herein to the maintainability of the eviction
petition by the landlord is frivolous."
Ram Babu Agarwal vs Jay Kishan Das on 7 October, 2009
In Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jay kishan Das, 2009(2) RCR 455,
the Apex Court observed as under:-
Section 12 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Ram Kumar Barnwal vs Ram Lakhan (Dead) on 14 May, 2007
In Ram Kumar Barnwal vs Ram Lakhan decided on 14 may
2007, civil Appeal No. 2480/2007, the court noted that the courts can
sometimes take notice of subsequent events, but the doctrine itself is of
an exceptional character only to be used in very special circumstances.