Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Shri Mohd. Ali vs Sheikh Mohd. Yahya on 15 March, 2012 cites

Indira Transport vs Rattan Lal on 16 May, 1997

(RCT Appeal No.32/2011) (Page 4 of 10) Babu Lal v. Raj Kumar & Others (1996) 3 SCC 154; Indira Transport v. Rattan Lal & Ors 67 (1997) DLT 544 for submitting that the claim filed by the appellant was required to be adjudicated upon by the learned Addl. Rent Controller instead of dismissing the objections straightaway. As such, it was submitted that the impugned order, being perverse, is liable to be set-aside.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Bhanwari Lal vs Satyanarain And Another on 4 October, 1994

4- It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the appellant was residing in the same property on the ground floor being a tenant in respect of two rooms. As such, the respondents were very well aware about the possession of the appellant, yet, in collusion with Shri V.K. Bhandari, respondents filed the eviction petition and got the eviction order. Respondents have relied upon the report of the bailiff according to which, the appellant met him and sought time to obtain stay order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the appellant never met the bailiff and did not give any such statement. Moreover, in the eviction petition, it was alleged by the respondents that tenant had sublet the premises to Ananda etc., then how could the appellant be a representative of tenant. At the most, he could be representative of those sub-tenants. It was submitted that the observation of learned Addl. Rent Controller that he has first to deliver the possession and then can only be heard, was wrong. Reliance was placed on Banwari Lal v. Satyanarain &Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 6; Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand 57 (1995) DLT 321 (SC);
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 78 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Noorduddin vs Dr. K.L. Anand on 6 October, 1994

4- It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the appellant was residing in the same property on the ground floor being a tenant in respect of two rooms. As such, the respondents were very well aware about the possession of the appellant, yet, in collusion with Shri V.K. Bhandari, respondents filed the eviction petition and got the eviction order. Respondents have relied upon the report of the bailiff according to which, the appellant met him and sought time to obtain stay order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the appellant never met the bailiff and did not give any such statement. Moreover, in the eviction petition, it was alleged by the respondents that tenant had sublet the premises to Ananda etc., then how could the appellant be a representative of tenant. At the most, he could be representative of those sub-tenants. It was submitted that the observation of learned Addl. Rent Controller that he has first to deliver the possession and then can only be heard, was wrong. Reliance was placed on Banwari Lal v. Satyanarain &Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 6; Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand 57 (1995) DLT 321 (SC);
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 149 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1