Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.56 seconds)
Smt. Indira Rao (Deceased) By L.Rs And ... vs West Coast Paper Mills Limited, ... on 17 November, 1998 cites

Shobha Surendar vs H.V. Rajan And Others on 1 November, 1996

7. Sri Holla, in response to the submission of Sri Srinivasan that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Suren-dar, supra, the eviction petition as well as the revision petition filed by the landlords are not maintainable, submitted that in this petition, the said question does not arise for consideration. He pointed out that the landlords have sought eviction of the tenant from the premises, which has been described as "two storeyed dwelling house" in the schedule given to the petition. He pointed out that it is not the case of the tenant at any time in the course of the proceedings before the Trial Court, that the petition schedule premises is not a residential premises and as such, the eviction petition filed by the landlords is not maintainable before the Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. vs Indira Rao on 31 August, 1990

10. However, it is necessary to refer to the contention of Sri Srinivasan based on the decision of this Court between the same parties, which is reported in West Coast Paper Mills case, supra, wherein the suit filed by the landlords for possession of the petition schedule premises though decreed by the Trial Court, came to be dismissed by this Court on the ground that Section 31 of the Act was applicable to the premises in question. It is the contention of Sri Srinivasan that since, in the earlier proceedings, the landlords had proceeded on the basis that the petition schedule premises is a non-residential premises and therefore, having filed a suit for recovery of possession of the petition schedule premises on the ground that Section 31 of the Act excludes the application of Part V of the Act, the landlords cannot contend that the schedule premises is a residential premises. I am unable to accede to this submission of Sri Srinivasan. As pointed out by me earlier, the evidence on record in the present case clearly establishes that the landlords had pleaded that the petition schedule premises is a residential premises. In the absence of any objection raised by the tenant either on the ground that the landlords are bound by the case pleaded by them in the earlier proceedings and therefore it is not permissible for them to take a different stand or on the ground that the petition schedule premises is a non-residential building and therefore the landlords are not entitled to file the petition invoking the provisions of the Act, the tenant cannot now be permitted to contend for the first time in this revision petition relying upon the earlier finding in the decision between the same parties, referred to above, that the petition schedule premises is a non-residential premises. In the absence of the pleadings of the earlier proceedings placed before the Court as a piece of evidence and the landlords are given an opportunity to explain the circumstances, if any, put against them, the tenant cannot be permitted to contend that the premises in question is a non-residential building. Insofar as this proceeding is concerned, the Court is required to consider on the basis of the evidence, whether the petition schedule premises is a residential premises on the date of the filing of the petition or not. This is purely a question of fact to be established. Therefore, in my view, the finding recorded in the ', earlier proceedings will neither operate as res judicata insofar as the nature of the premises is concerned, nor can it be said that the landlords are blowing hot and cold to the detriment of the tenant.
Karnataka High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

H. Padmanabha Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 1986

The earlier decision between the parties holding that the suit was not maintainable (based on Padmanabha Rao's case, supra, that Section 31 of the Act is void or invalid) will bind the parties to the proceedings and they cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate and contend relying upon the decision ol the Supreme Court in Shobha Surendar's case, supra, that Section 31 of the Act is valid and therefore the proceedings initiated under tbe Act must be held as one without jurisdiction. This is because the decision of the Civil Court holding that it had no jurisdiction, was correct and in accordance with law when it was rendered. As per the law declared then, the Court under KRC Act had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition. There has been no change in the statute, subsequent to such decision of the Civil Court in the suit. There is only a change in the interpretation of the statute by Courts. Therefore, the principle of res judicata will continue to apply in such cases, with reference to any objection of want of jurisdiction of the Court under the KRC Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Busching Schmitz Private Ltd vs P.T. Menghani And Anr on 17 March, 1977

In this connection, it is useful to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Busching Schmitz Private Limited v P.T. Menghani and Another . In the said case, the Supreme Court has observed that whatever is suitable or adaptable for residential uses, even by making some changes, can-be designated as a residential premises. At paragraphs 17 and 18, the Supreme Court has observed thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 107 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Prem Chand vs District Judge, Dehradun & Anr on 23 November, 1976

Further, the Supreme Court, while considering the question whether, if, out of two rooms, one room is used as a Tailoring shop occupied by the Tailor, such a premises is a residential premises, has, in the case of Prem Chand v District Judge, Dehradun and Another , held that it is a residential premises. It is useful to refer to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgment, which read as hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Avtar Singh & Ors vs Jagjit Singh & Anr on 27 July, 1979

"16.1. It is well-settled that a Civil Court has always the jurisdiction to decide whether it has jurisdiction to try a suit before it or not and its decision on the question of jurisdiction will operate as res judicata in regard to the same question raised in any subsequent proceedings (See: Upendra Nath v Lalt and Avtar Singh v Jagjit Singh). Therefore, when the civil suit filed by the landlord against his tenant for possession is dismissed by the Civil Court by holding that it had no jurisdiction in view of the decision in Padmanabha Rao, and the landlord has to file an eviction petition under the KRC Act, such decision becomes final and conclusive as between the parties, in regard to the question so decided, and as between them will constitute an absolute bar to a reconsideration of the same question in any subsequent litigation. The principle of res judicata is the principle of estoppel by judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 25 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1   2 Next