Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.05 seconds)
Sukhdev Raj Arora (Since Deceased) vs M.K. Bhargava (Since Deceased Through ... on 28 March, 2025 cites

Suresh Kumar Kohli vs Rakesh Jain on 19 April, 2018

In Suresh Kumar Kohli (supra), father Ishwar Chand Jain and one son Ramesh Chand Jain were the tenants of the shop in Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh. The other son Rakesh Jain was inducted as a partner in the family business subsequently. The owner through legal notice to Ramesh Chand Jain had terminated the tenancy on 31.05.2009. Thereafter, Sh. Ishwar Chand Jain died on 08.03.2010. The owner filed an eviction petition u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act which was allowed and same attained finality, as revision petition filed by Ramesh Chand Jain was dismissed. In execution petition, Rakesh Jain filed objection claiming that he being necessary party, as he has inherited rights in the family business, he was not aware about the eviction proceedings. The said objection petition was dismissed. The CM(M) filed by Rakesh Jain against the said order was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court. Against that order owner filed this appeal. The Court has mentioned in Para 5 that point for consideration is if the status of heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant will be of joint tenants or of tenants in common.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 70 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Sukhdev Raj Arora (Decd.) Thr. Lr vs M.K. Bhargava on 8 January, 2010

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has reiterated the averments made in the appeal. The main contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that two eviction petitions have been filed by the respondent, one u/s 14(1)(a) of DRC Act and other u/s 14(1)(b) and (j) of DRC Act. After the death of appellant Sukhdev Raj Arora on 06.10.2008, applications under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC were filed in both the petitions. But in the present case, only three LRs were impleaded and in the second petition five LRs were impleaded. In fact, Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj Arora has left behind his widow, one son and three daughters. But in the present case three daughters were left out in the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. Respondent has played fraud by not impleading them in the present case and had impleaded them in the other petition. Moreover, respondent had moved an application u/s 151 CPC in March, 2016 supported with his Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG RCT-53/2017 Sukhdev Raj Arora Vs M.K. Bhargava (since deceased) through LRs Page 5 of 12 GARG Date:
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 Next