Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.88 seconds)
Kanwal Narain vs L.F. Tellis on 29 September, 1983 cites

Harbhajan Das vs Tilak Raj Mehta on 26 September, 1980

(8) A preliminary objection to this petition is that no revision against the impugned order is maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent derived support from Harbhajan Das v. Tilak Raj, 1981 Rajdhani Lr (Note) 7. It was held in that case that where the Controller gave the finding on the need of the landlord, it is a pure question of fact and the landlord cannot seek its revision by the High Court. The High Court, can interfere only in exceptional crises when the finding is based on no evidence or is patently perverse.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

Abdul Hamid And Anr. vs Nur Mohd on 21 April, 1976

In Abdul Hamid (supra) it was, however, held that the statute has laid on the landlord the duty to allege and prove what is laid down in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and on a question of this importance, it would be neither safe nor desirable to rest any decision on the mere ground of want of surprise to the tenant. Without making such necessary allegations, there will be no jurisdiction for Controller to order eviction. The learned Judge has not given any reason why the element of surprise or prejudice should not be considered in an eviction proceeding. Pleadings after all are matter of procedure and the implication of the rule of second allege et probate is that they should be construed and whole and in a reasonable manner and is the substance and not the form that is material. Pleas can be considered even where these are indirect or obscure. A plea outside the pleadings and proof thereof may be permitted if the opposite party was not been taken by surprise and no prejudice or injustice has been caused to it. It will be so where the opponent had raised no objection to its omission or has been admitted by him or he knew that such a plea had a bearing on the case and could be raised and decided or it was not inconsistent with the allegations made in the pleadings and is based upon the facts alleged therein or the opponent had a reasonable opportunity to meet it or has in fact led exidence to disprove the same.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

S.R. Dutta vs Chunni Lal Bhatia on 11 December, 1980

(10) Relying upon Abdul Hamid v. Nur Mohammad, ; S.R. Dutta v. Chunilal Bhatia, 1981 Rajdhani Lr 172, Shri Chawla next urged that the application is liable to dismissal because the petitioner has not pleaded that (1) he is owner or coparcener on account of adoption, and (2) he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation and has not disclosed the accommodation, namely, mezzanine floors, entire second floor and four garages and one another house in Daryaganj. The argument is that the applicant must plead all the ingredients, of S. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). If he does not, he must fail because (1) he cannot be allowed to lead evidence to prove what he did not plead and even if he has led evidence, it cannot be looked into and (2) he has not disclosed the entire cause of action.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Man Mohan Mehra vs J.S. Butalia on 4 July, 1983

(12) As will presently appear, the rule is not absolute and a general application of this rule may result in hardship if not in injustice. As regards non-disclosure of cause of action, I have said in M.M. Mehra v. J.S. Butalia, Cr 268/83 (1983. Raj. LR. 711) that to insist upon the reproduction of what the provisions of the statute are, is to ask the applicant to plead law. Moreover, such an omission can be allowed to be rectified by replication, by better particulars or by an amendment and in any event, an application cannot be thrown out if there is a partial disclosure of cause of action.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Haji Umar Abdul Rahiman vs Gustadji Mancherji Cooper on 7 February, 1910

These observations, it will be noticed did not lay emphasis on the pleadings, but on the case made out in the pleadings. Commenting upon these observations Viscount Haldane said in Haji Umar v. Gustadji Air 1915 Pc 87 : "In applying such a principle the whole of the circumstances must be taken into account and carefully scrutinised. The question is in ultimate analysis one of the circumstances and not of law."
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next