Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.28 seconds)
Parkash Chand And Ors. vs Thakur Dass And Ors. on 28 May, 2003 cites

Brijendra Nath Bhargava & Anr vs Harsh Wardhan & Ors on 2 December, 1987

13. The principles laid down in Om Parkash's case (supra) were followed, applied and approved in the cases of Brijendra Nath Bhargava v. Harsh Vardhan, AIR 1987 SC 617 and Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand (1988)l SCC 454 The case of Vipin Kumar (supra) has also been followed and relied upon in the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalik Rubber Industries. (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 694 (S.C.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 31 - G L Oza - Full Document

Resham Singh vs Raghbir Singh & Anr on 23 August, 1999

The learned counsel maintained that one Malvinder Singh, Overseer, Municipal Committee, Sunam has appeared and no cross-examination was conducted on him regarding preexisting dry latrine because he had mentioned in his report dated 9th January, 1981, Exhibit A9 that new flush latrine and kitchen were constructed. According to the learned counsel, similar statement has been made by Satish Kant, Clerk; Municipal Committee, Sunam (PW8) and PW6 Sh. Shiv Kumar Mittal, Executive Officer. A reference has also been made to the notices, Exhibits A5 and A6 issued under Section 195 of the Municipal Act, 1911. On the basis of the aforementioned evidence, learned counsel submitted that this Court would not be inclined to interfere in concurrent findings of fact, as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Resham Singh v. Raghbir Singh, 1999(2) Rent L.R. 654 and Lekh Raj v. Muni Lal, 2001(2) Rent L.R.5,
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Joginder Sharma on 30 September, 2002

Union of India v. Joginder Singh, 1983(2) Rent L.R. 464 Kharar Saw Mill v. Prem Kaur, 1995(2) Rent L.R. 729, Mohan Lal Ashok Raj v. Lajwanti Devi, 1997(2) Rent L.R. 197 and Manohar Lal Mulwani v. Punjab Stale Cooperative Bank Limited, 1984(2) Rent L.R. 190. On the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this Court as well as Supreme Court, learned counsel, has argued that even if the additional construction or alterations have increased the value of the building, it would not make any material difference because the impairment in the utility of the building has to be viewed from the point of view of the landlord alone. According to the learned counsel, there is no escape from the conclusion that construction of a flush toilet by removing the arch door and merging the same for constructing the toilets and the construction of a kitchen, are such constructions which have impaired the utility of the building. He has also submitted that no interference in the finding of fact based on cogent evidence would be warranted by this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 33 - D Raju - Full Document

Kharar Saw Mill Industry And Furniture ... vs Smt. Prem Kaur And Ors. on 7 August, 1995

Union of India v. Joginder Singh, 1983(2) Rent L.R. 464 Kharar Saw Mill v. Prem Kaur, 1995(2) Rent L.R. 729, Mohan Lal Ashok Raj v. Lajwanti Devi, 1997(2) Rent L.R. 197 and Manohar Lal Mulwani v. Punjab Stale Cooperative Bank Limited, 1984(2) Rent L.R. 190. On the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this Court as well as Supreme Court, learned counsel, has argued that even if the additional construction or alterations have increased the value of the building, it would not make any material difference because the impairment in the utility of the building has to be viewed from the point of view of the landlord alone. According to the learned counsel, there is no escape from the conclusion that construction of a flush toilet by removing the arch door and merging the same for constructing the toilets and the construction of a kitchen, are such constructions which have impaired the utility of the building. He has also submitted that no interference in the finding of fact based on cogent evidence would be warranted by this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - S Saksena - Full Document

Om Prakash vs Amar Singh & Anr on 9 January, 1987

16. The argument of the tenant-petitioners that no impairment of the value is to be inferred, does not require any detailed examination for the reasons that the substantial alterations and additions made would lead to irresistible conclusion that the structural design of the demised premises like arched doorway and merging the same for constructing the flush latrine, have been changed and the utility of the building from the point of view of the landlord-respondents has been impaired. Similar conclusion has to be arrived at if we examine the addition of kitchen. The report of the expert, Shri Hem Raj Singla, PW2 and the site plan, Exhibit A3 would clearly show that in the courtyard area, bath room Nos. 1 and 2 have been added and the side wall of the kitchen has .been constructed. The floors of the Deodi and .courtyard has been constructed new. Certainly, this type of construction raised by the tenant-petitioner would impair the utility of the courtyard which was left open by the landlord-respondents. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Om Parkash's case (supra) and Vipan Kumar's case (supra) and Gurbachan Singh's case (supra) would fully apply to the facts of the instant case and argument that the utility has not been impaired, is liable to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 81 - K N Singh - Full Document

Gurbachan Singh And Anr vs Shivalak Rubber Industries And Ors on 23 February, 1996

16. The argument of the tenant-petitioners that no impairment of the value is to be inferred, does not require any detailed examination for the reasons that the substantial alterations and additions made would lead to irresistible conclusion that the structural design of the demised premises like arched doorway and merging the same for constructing the flush latrine, have been changed and the utility of the building from the point of view of the landlord-respondents has been impaired. Similar conclusion has to be arrived at if we examine the addition of kitchen. The report of the expert, Shri Hem Raj Singla, PW2 and the site plan, Exhibit A3 would clearly show that in the courtyard area, bath room Nos. 1 and 2 have been added and the side wall of the kitchen has .been constructed. The floors of the Deodi and .courtyard has been constructed new. Certainly, this type of construction raised by the tenant-petitioner would impair the utility of the courtyard which was left open by the landlord-respondents. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Om Parkash's case (supra) and Vipan Kumar's case (supra) and Gurbachan Singh's case (supra) would fully apply to the facts of the instant case and argument that the utility has not been impaired, is liable to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 71 - K Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next