Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Smt Devi Bai (Since Deceased Now ... vs Smt. Kailash Devi on 21 January, 2011 cites

Prem Chander Jain vs Jagat Parkash Gupta on 4 May, 1988

7. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that the judgment of the trial court is perverse; the trial judge had rightly rejected the version of DW-6 and DW-7 which was only hearsay. The documentary evidence adduced by the defendant could not be relied upon to decipher the intent of the parties. Ex.DW-2/1 and Ex.DW-2/2 were merely cyclostyled formats of the House Tax Department. Entire property owned by the plaintiff is about 300 sq. yards of which only 12 to 15 sq. yards are in possession of the defendant; this is also a deciding factor to determine the intention of the parties; intent was not to create a lease; it was only a permissive user granted to the defendant. The finding in the impugned judgment that merely because the legal notice had been sent by UPC is not sufficient to hold that it would be suspect document; such a finding is an illegality. For this proposition reliance has been placed upon RCR 1974 578 Kishan Chand Vs. Satya Paul (Delhi); another judgment of the this Court reported in 35 (1998) DLT 279 Prem Chander Jain Vs. Jagat Parkash Gupta. It is pointed out that even for a communication sent by UPC, a presumption of service can be raised.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Associated Hotels Of India Ltd vs R. N. Kapoor on 19 May, 1959

8. Arguments have been countered. It is pointed out that the intent of the parties was clear from the fact that the predecessor- in-interest of the plaintiff had initially allowed Gobind Ram, the husband of the defendant, to use and occupy the suit property. It is pointed out that this is clear from the averments made in the plaint. Even after the death of the predecessor of the plaintiff as also the husband of the defendant, the relationship between the parties i.e. between Devi Bai and Kailash Devi continued; rent was also enhanced. It is submitted that this by itself reflects upon the RSA No.2/2004 Page 4 of 9 intent of the parties which was to give exclusive right of user to the defendant; it was a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1959 1261 Associated Hotels of India Vs. R.N.Kapoor ; a subsequent judgment dated reported in (1989) 3 SCC 574 Capt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 370 - S K Das - Full Document

Capt. B.V.D Souza vs Antonio Fausto Fernandes on 1 August, 1989

B.V. D,Souza Vs. Antonio Fausto Fernades ; as also on another judgment reported in (2006)6 SCC 394 Anthony Vs. K.C. Ittoop & Sons to bring out a distinction between a lease and a licence. It is pointed out that applying the ratio of the aforenoted judgments it can clearly be concluded that the parties had in fact intended to create a lease. On the question of notice, it is submitted that the defendant all along had pleaded that the notice Ex.PW-1/3 terminating his tenancy had not been served upon him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 46 - L M Sharma - Full Document
1