Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)
Sh. Sanjay Gupta vs Sh. S.C. Jain on 27 July, 2016 cites

Pal Singh vs Sunder Singh (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 10 January, 1989

It has also been held in a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and more specifically in Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath 1976 RCR (Rent) 832, (1976) 4 Supreme Court cases 184, Kanta Goel vs. D.P. Pathak, 1979 (1) RCR (Rent) 485; (1977) 2 Supreme Court cases 814 and Pal Singh vs. Sunder Singh 1989 (2) RCR (Rent) 331; : (1989) 1 Supreme Court cases 444;
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 135 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. vs Sudesh Kumar Jassal on 22 August, 2013

In view of the aforesaid documents as well as in view of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, the tenant is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord especially when he has tendered or paid rent to the landlord. Furthermore, it has been held in Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudesh Kumar Dass in RCR No. 136/12 that "it is settled law that in the context of Delhi Rent Control Act, what appears to be the meaning of the term 'owner' is that vis-a-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant." The position in law is that "The ownership" of the landlord for the purpose of maintaining a petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act is not required to be a absolute ownership of the property and it is ARC. No. 25751 of 16 Sanjay Gupta vs. S.C. Jain Page 9/17 sufficient if the landlord is a person who is collecting the rent on his own behalf. The imperfectness of the title of the premises can neither stand in the way of an eviction petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act, nor can the tenant be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord."
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 37 - M Singh - Full Document

Precision Steel And Engineering Works ... vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal on 7 October, 1982

In Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Anr. Vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal (1982) 3 SCC 270, the Apex Court has held that "the prayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima facie case i.e. such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court should not mechanically and in a routine manner grant leave to defend."
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 614 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next