Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.35 seconds)
Pomey Plastic Works vs Gulshan Arora on 4 July, 2018 cites

Saroja vs Chinnusamy (Dead) By L.Rs And Anr on 24 August, 2007

The said judgment/decree cannot be used by the Defendant to continue to occupy the First Floor. The Trial Court's finding that the Plaintiff is the owner of the property and that the Defendant is a trespasser is liable to be upheld. The earlier suit was a suit for injunction and does not operate as res judicata as rightly held by the Trial Court in answer to issue no.-3. Counsel for the Defendant/Appellant relies upon Saroja v. Chinnusamy (Dead) by LRs [C.A. 3907/2009 decision dated 24th August, 2007] to argue that an ex-parte decree is binding. On this, there can be no dispute. However, the scope of the judgment which was passed was only in respect to injunction and not in a suit seeking declaratory title.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 51 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Naeem Ahmed vs Sh. Yashpal Malhotra (Deceased) ... on 19 August, 2011

In Naeem Ahmad v. Yashpal Malhotra, a Division Bench of this court has clearly held that if a tenant trespasses into any other portion of the property, the remedy of the owner is to file a civil suit to obtain possession. Such a tenant would not be considered as a protected tenant and shall also not be entitled to any benefit under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 27 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1