Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.31 seconds)
Subhash Chandra Raswant vs Alokesh Barua on 6 July, 2023 cites

Ran Singh vs Lilu Ram (Deceased) Thr Lrs. on 17 January, 2018

(Emphasis supplied) 11.6. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Ran Singh v. Lilu Ram (supra) is of no assistance to the Petitioner as it is evident that the said order was passed in the peculiar facts of that case. There is no discussion on the legal principles governing the eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, in the circumstances, where the tenant has admittedly continued to pay the rent to the landlord even after execution of the alleged agreement to sell.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - R K Gauba - Full Document

Shyam Narayan Prasad vs Krishna Prasad on 2 July, 2018

He also relied upon judgment of the Supreme court in Shyam Narayan v. Krishna Prasad, (2018) 7 SCC 646. He relied upon the said judgments to contend that the Petitioner herein to avail the benefit of Section 53 A of TPA must necessarily plead in his application seeking leave to defend that he has taken possession of the property in part performance of the contract. He stated that in the present case, no such plea was raised by the Petitioner in his pleadings and therefore, he is not entitled to claim the benefit under Section 53 A of TPA. 5.2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 117 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

S. Sanyal vs Gian Chand on 14 September, 1967

He relies upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand, AIR 1968 SC 438, to contend that it is trite law that the tenancy cannot be split up. He states that therefore, the averments made by the Petitioner, tenant, with respect to payment of rent towards undivided portion of the tenanted premises, proportionate to the unpaid sale consideration is absurd, untenable and contrary to law. He states that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA RC.REV. 44/2023 Page 5 of 20 Signing Date:06.07.2023 18:15:10 Respondents do not admit that the payment of rent by the Petitioner was towards a portion of the tenanted premises as alleged. 5.3. He states that in fact in the leave to defend application and the rejoinder to the reply to leave to defend application, it is admitted by the Petitioner that the tenant continued to pay the admitted rent till 2014, whereas the alleged ATS was executed in the year 1982. 5.4. He has relied upon the averments at paragraph '11' of the eviction petition and the corresponding paragraphs of the leave to defend application and rejoinder to contend that the averment of the landlord that the monthly rent of tenanted premises is ₹ 500 was unchallenged and therefore, admitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 60 - J C Shah - Full Document

R. Kanthimathi And Anr. vs Beatrice Xavier (Mrs) on 8 February, 2000

11.5. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the judgement of the Supreme Court in R. Kanthimathi and Anr. v. Beatrice Xavier, 2000 SCC OnLine SC 347, is not attracted in the facts of this case. Unlike, in the present matter, the execution of the agreement to sell and receipt of part consideration was admitted between the parties in the said case. This is evident from paragraph '2' of the said judgement. Further, in the said case, the tenant therein did not continue to pay any further rent to the landlady after the execution of the agreement to sell. The paragraph 2 of the said judgment reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 76 - N S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 Next