Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.27 seconds)Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Kanwal Narain vs L.F. Tellis on 29 July, 1983
This is so
especially held by Hon'ble High Court in Kanwal Narain Vs. L.F.
Tellis 1984 RLR 10 whether that a party need not reproduce eviction
ground in Section 14 (1) in eviction petition and if omitted and
tenant raises objections, then details may be given in replication and
if parties know opponent's case, then Courts must ignore technical
defects defects and go by substance of the matter rather than by form
and that as observed in para 16 of the said verdict by the time
replication was filed the whole case under clause (e) had been known
and later on fought on that footing. Further more as rightly observed
by the ld. Rent Controller vide the impugned order as laid down by
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case 1982 RLR 650 to the effect
that Controller is not bound to dismiss the petition under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC and that there is always power available to the Rent
Controller to allow the amendments of the petition under Order VI
Rule 17 CPC coupled with the observations of the ld. Rent Controller
to the effect that he had been specifically averred in para 8, 9 and 10
in Annexure A in the eviction petition No. 29/11 that premises were
required for the sons of the petitioner coupled with the submission in
the petition itself that premises in question are required by the
petitioner for her sons, the petition cannot be rejected under Order
ARCT-45/2013 Page 16/17
VII Rule 11 CPC.
Man Mohan Mehra vs J.S. Butalia on 4 July, 1983
(1) Kanwal Narain Vs. L.F. Tellis 1984 RLR 10
(2) V.B. Raju Vs. Joginder Singh 1982 RLR 650
(3) Des Raj Vs. Joginder Singh 1984 RLR (N) 33
(4) Sham Lal Vs. Om Prakash Gupta 1979 (2) RCR 305
(5) J.L. Mehta Vs. Smt. Hira Devi 1990 DLT (Vol.VI) 484
(6) Ram Gopal Vs. Washeshwar Nath 16 (1979) DLT 215
(7) Smt. Ram Chameli Vs. Smt. Sujan Kaur &Anr. 81 (1999) DLT
ARCT-45/2013 Page 15/17
549
(8) Man Mohan Mehra Vs. J.S. Butalia 1983 (2) RCR 456 and
(9) Parvesh Kanta Vs. Vijay Kumar 81 (1999) DLT 374
would include the bonafide need of the dependent of the
landlord also, the contention of the appellant herein that the eviction
petition was not maintainable cannot be accepted.
S.K. Aggarwal vs Abdul Aziz on 9 August, 1999
On a consideration of the rival submissions made on
behalf of either side and on perusal of the verdicts relied upon on
behalf of either side as regards contention of the respondent that the
appeal is not maintainable in terms of Section 38 of Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, this ARCT is of the considered view that the aspect
ARCT-45/2013 Page 14/17
that the disposal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
certainly affects the rights of the parties whether of the appellant or
the respondent thereto and thus in view of the verdicts of the Hon'ble
High Court in S.K. Aggarwal Vs. Abdul Aziz 81 (1999) DLT 278;
Smt. Bhagwati Vs. Hai S.M. Sayeed 1979 (2)RCR 142; Ram
Panjwani Vs. Shanti Devi 1979 (2) RCR 529 and Smt. Ganga Bai Vs.
Vijay Kumar AIR 1974 SC 1126, it is held that appeal is
maintainable.
Parvesh Kant vs Vijay Kumar on 27 July, 1999
(1) Kanwal Narain Vs. L.F. Tellis 1984 RLR 10
(2) V.B. Raju Vs. Joginder Singh 1982 RLR 650
(3) Des Raj Vs. Joginder Singh 1984 RLR (N) 33
(4) Sham Lal Vs. Om Prakash Gupta 1979 (2) RCR 305
(5) J.L. Mehta Vs. Smt. Hira Devi 1990 DLT (Vol.VI) 484
(6) Ram Gopal Vs. Washeshwar Nath 16 (1979) DLT 215
(7) Smt. Ram Chameli Vs. Smt. Sujan Kaur &Anr. 81 (1999) DLT
ARCT-45/2013 Page 15/17
549
(8) Man Mohan Mehra Vs. J.S. Butalia 1983 (2) RCR 456 and
(9) Parvesh Kanta Vs. Vijay Kumar 81 (1999) DLT 374
would include the bonafide need of the dependent of the
landlord also, the contention of the appellant herein that the eviction
petition was not maintainable cannot be accepted.
Ram Chameli vs Smt.Sujan Kaur & Another on 10 August, 1999
(1) Kanwal Narain Vs. L.F. Tellis 1984 RLR 10
(2) V.B. Raju Vs. Joginder Singh 1982 RLR 650
(3) Des Raj Vs. Joginder Singh 1984 RLR (N) 33
(4) Sham Lal Vs. Om Prakash Gupta 1979 (2) RCR 305
(5) J.L. Mehta Vs. Smt. Hira Devi 1990 DLT (Vol.VI) 484
(6) Ram Gopal Vs. Washeshwar Nath 16 (1979) DLT 215
(7) Smt. Ram Chameli Vs. Smt. Sujan Kaur &Anr. 81 (1999) DLT
ARCT-45/2013 Page 15/17
549
(8) Man Mohan Mehra Vs. J.S. Butalia 1983 (2) RCR 456 and
(9) Parvesh Kanta Vs. Vijay Kumar 81 (1999) DLT 374
would include the bonafide need of the dependent of the
landlord also, the contention of the appellant herein that the eviction
petition was not maintainable cannot be accepted.
Des Raj vs Joginder Singh And Others on 6 May, 2013
(1) Kanwal Narain Vs. L.F. Tellis 1984 RLR 10
(2) V.B. Raju Vs. Joginder Singh 1982 RLR 650
(3) Des Raj Vs. Joginder Singh 1984 RLR (N) 33
(4) Sham Lal Vs. Om Prakash Gupta 1979 (2) RCR 305
(5) J.L. Mehta Vs. Smt. Hira Devi 1990 DLT (Vol.VI) 484
(6) Ram Gopal Vs. Washeshwar Nath 16 (1979) DLT 215
(7) Smt. Ram Chameli Vs. Smt. Sujan Kaur &Anr. 81 (1999) DLT
ARCT-45/2013 Page 15/17
549
(8) Man Mohan Mehra Vs. J.S. Butalia 1983 (2) RCR 456 and
(9) Parvesh Kanta Vs. Vijay Kumar 81 (1999) DLT 374
would include the bonafide need of the dependent of the
landlord also, the contention of the appellant herein that the eviction
petition was not maintainable cannot be accepted.
Union Of India vs Sita Ram Jaiswal on 28 October, 1976
Union of India Vs. Sita Ram Jaiswal AIR 1977
Supreme Court 329 to contend that essential features constituting a
cause of action had necessarily to be pleaded;