Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.41 seconds)Mst. Rukhmabai vs Lala Laxminarayan And Others on 17 November, 1959
8.2.2. The above observations have been followed and applied by Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) in Rukhmabai Vs. Lala Laxminarayan & Others, .
Surendra Kumar Jain vs Royce Pereira on 19 November, 1997
8.2.3. These observations have been quoted again with approval in Suren der Kumar Jain Vs. Royce Pereira, . In that case also the respondent informed the Corporation in tax proceedings that he was paying rent of Rs. 200/ per month. It was observed that the said statement even if true, stood rebutted by appellant's letter dated 31st May, 1974 admitting that he was in possession as a 'paying guest'. In the case in hand, apart from payment of house tax and self serving statement, the claim of the defendant inconsistent with the facts and circumstances.
Sukhanand vs The Iv Additional District Judge, ... on 14 May, 1993
In Sukhanand Vs. Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr & Anr., was also relied upon by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff it was held that it was the burden of the tenant to prove payment of rent and it was not discharged.
G.M. Modi Hospital & R.C.M.S. vs Shankar Singh Bhandari And Ors. on 3 February, 1995
In M/s. G.M. Modi Hospital & Research Centre Vs. Sh. Shankar Singh Bhandari and Others, 1995 I AD (Delhi) 1069=58 (1995) DLT 79 injunc tion was vacated where the plaintiffs who claimed to be lessee of the premises failed to establish prima facie that they had acquired any right to be in possession (occupation).
Jagdish vs Smt. Premlata Rai on 7 November, 1989
10.6. Though, there cannot be a dispute with the proposition that in case a party wants to crossexamine the person who has filed the affidavit, crossexamination should be allowed for such an affidavit in an ordinary course may not be sufficient to form a basis of final decision to pass a decree, yet such a proposition cannot be accepted in respect of interim orders. If this proposition is accepted then the question of recording of evidence would arise in disposing of every injunction application or appli cation misc. application like the present. As such the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Jagdish Vs. Premlata Rai, not of any help to the defendant.
Kanti Singh And Ors. vs Project & Equipment Corporation Of ... on 11 October, 1997
10.7. The learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to Kanti Singh & Ors. Vs. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., but this judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the defendant related to Order 12, Rule 6 where a final decree was sought to be passed on the basis of a Division Bench judgment. No such decree is being passed in the case in hand.
Sakalabhaktula Vykunta Rao And Ors. vs Made Appalaswamy on 16 February, 1977
In Sakalabhaktula Vykunta Rao and Others Vs. Made Appalaswamy, also the Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the above principle in respect of disposal of the application under Order 39, Rule 1 on the ground that the scope of inquiries is quite limited and the rights of the parties was not being decided finally. Consequently the question of summoning the deponents of the affidavits filed for the purpose of cross examination does not arise. Consequently, it is felt that there is no substance in this submission made by the learned Counsel for the defendant.
Section 50 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Alluri Venkatapathi Raju vs Dantuluri Venkatanarsimha Raju on 17 July, 1936
In this regard before proceeding further, it would be useful to quote observation of the Privy Council in Alluri Venkatapathi Raju & Anr. Vs. Dantuluri Venkatanarasimha Raju & Ors., AIR 1936 PC 264. It reads as under :