Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Section 17 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Girdhari Lal & Sons vs Balbir Nath Mathur & Ors on 26 February, 1986
But then, the said judgment would not refer to the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girdhari Lal &
Sons (supra), the spirit of which is to the contrary.
Section 18 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Jagan Nath vs Abdul Aziz And Ors. on 28 April, 1972
We do not consider it
necessary to embark into a discussion of the
two cases cited before us Jagan Nath V. Abdul
Aziz, AIR 1973 Delhi 9 and Murari Lal V.
Abdul Ghafar, ILR (1974) I Delhi 45.
Atma Ram Properties(P) Ltd. vs M/S Allied Motors (P) Ltd. on 26 March, 2010
16.In the case of Atma Ram Properties (supra), contention was
raised based on the use of the expression "may" as against the
expression "shall", in the context of requirement of notice to be
served on the landlord within the period of six months of the
ARCT No. 29/08 Arjun Lal Vs. Kultar Sood & anr. 11 of 14
DRC Act coming into force. Undoubtedly, in that case a single
bench of Hon'ble High Court took a view that this would
indicate that the service of notice in writing was not mandatory.
1