Chander Kishore Sharma And Anr. vs Kampa Wati on 4 July, 1983
In Chhander Kishore Sharma and Anr. v. Smt. Kampa Wati (2), it was held that where father and son are living in a portion, it is substantial question of law.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Umrao vs Smt. Minu @ Manju And Ors. on 3 August, 1999
In Umrao v. Smt. Minu @ Manju Sanghi (6), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that it is not a case of sub-letting in favour of son if the tenant continued visiting the shop. In Jagan Nath (Deceased) Through Lrs. v. Chander Bhan and Ors. (7), it was held that in case of joint Hindu family when the tenant carries on business with the help of his son, it does not amount to sub-letting.
Hardev vs Jaidev on 2 December, 1999
The judgment delivered in Hardev v. Jaidev through his legal representatives, (8), has no application to the question involved in the instant case as it relates to hereditary tenants.
Kala And Another vs Madho Parshad Vaidya on 27 August, 1998
In Kala and Another v. Madho Prashad Vaidya (9), it was held that burden lies upon the landlord to prove sub-letting.
Bhoolchand And Anr vs Kay Pee Cee Investments And Anr on 10 October, 1990
11. It was also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the courts below had drawn an adverse inference against the appellant on account of non-production of bills etc. but there was no evidence to prove the existence of any such documents, hence adverse inference was wrongly drawn. He placed reliance upon Bhoolchand and Another v. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Another (10) and Mohinder Kaur v. Kusam Anand (11). It was held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in both the judgments that such an adverse inference can be drawn if the existence of the document and its possession with the part was established and party was asked to produce the document in the court.
Bhairab Chandra Nandan vs Ranadhir Chandra Dutta on 16 December, 1987
In Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta (12), it was held that in case the tenant had given possession of the rented premises to his brother, it amounts to sub-letting.
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
In Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and Ors. (18), it was held that a party in possession of best evidence which would throw light on the issue in controversy withholding the same, the Court should draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him.
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Smt. Manak Bai And Ors. vs Kalyan Bux on 5 September, 1988
10. It was next submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the findings of the courts below on the point of sub-letting are also perverse and contrary to the provisions of law. he placed reliance upon a number of judgment.
Mohinder Kaur vs Kusam Anand on 8 May, 2000
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that both the courts below having considered the entire evidence arrived at concurrent finding and the same is not perverse. He also placed reliance upon some of the judgments.