Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.11 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 38 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
J.R. Vohra vs India Export House Pvt. Ltd. And Another on 14 February, 1985
35. There is not merit in the second contention that the
order dated 18.10.85 had become final and therefore it was
not open to the landlord to argue before the appellate
Tribunal that the tenant was not entitled to raise objection
to the validity of the permission after expiry of the
tenancy. The order dated 18.10.85 was of interlocutory
nature and on a prima facie view it permitted the parties to
adduce avidence after holding that the objections of the
tenant required consideration. That would not prevent the
landlord from contending before the appellate Tribunal that
the tenant was not entitled to raise objections to the
validity of the permission after the expiry of the tenancy
as per the law laid down in J.R. Vohra and Pankaj Bhargava
(supra). Thus both contentions of the tenant deserve to be
rejected and the appeal has to suffer dismissal.
Garikapatti Veeraya vs N. Subbiah Choudhury on 1 February, 1957
7. The Tribunal found that the A.R.C. erred in
entertaining the objections of the tenant at the late stage
of execution and allowing the same in view of the settled
position of law that such objections could not be raised
after the expiry of the period of tenancy. There was also an
objection by the tenant that the landlord's appeal was not
maintainable in view of the amended provision in section 38
of the Act which permitted appeals only on questions of law.
That objection was overruled by the Tribunal on the ground
that the petition for execution was filed long before the
said amendment was introduced and the landlord's vested
right of appeal could not be affected by the subsequent
amendment of 1988. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of
this court in Garikapati Veeraya versus N. Subbiah Choudhry
and other AIR 1957 S.C. 540. On the above findings the
Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the landlord.
Section 56 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Pankaj Bhargava And Anr vs Mohinder Nath And Anr on 11 December, 1990
In that case, the Bench has in fact relied on
the ruling in Pankaj Bhargava's case (supra). The Bench has
clearly held that the objection to the validity of the
permission for limited tenancy should be made immediately on
the tenant becoming aware of the fraud, collusion etc. and
that the tenant may be permitted to raise objections after
the expiry of lease in exceptional circumstances only. It
has also been held that the burden to prove fraud or
collusion is on the person alleging it. No exceptional
circumstance has been made out in this case to enable the
tenant to challenge the order dated 30.6.81 after the expiry
of the tenancy.
1