Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.75 seconds)
Smt. Rasina vs Sh. Abdul Majid on 29 October, 2011 cites

M/S Nopany Investments (P) Ltd vs Santokh Singh (Huf) on 10 December, 2007

Now the matter comes as to whether the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated or not ? To prove it, the plaintiff has proved two legal notices on record which are Ex. PW1/25 and Ex. PW1/28 and admitted and replied documents of the defendant. Vide Ex. DW1/4 and DW1/5. These legal notices are proving intention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not interested in keeping the defendant her tenant any more and she was willing to terminate the tenancy of the defendant. Though in first legal notice Ex. PW1/25 no specific word of termination of tenancy has been mentioned, yet Ex. PW1/28 is explaining this fact that the previous notice was intended to terminate the tenancy of the defendant. By the clarifications of Ex. PW1/28, it is clear that the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated by these notices. Even otherwise it has been held by the Hon. Supreme Court of India in 146 (2008) DLT 217 (SC) titled No Pany Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) that filing of eviction suit is itself a notice to quit on tenant. After the termination of the tenancy, the defendant is liable to vacate the premises and the plaintiff will be entitled for the possession.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 764 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Mitter Sen Jain vs Shakuntala Devi on 19 April, 2000

I have gone through the detail of the notified area U/s 1 (2) of DRC Act and the revenue estate Mustafabad has not been placed in the details of notified area C.S. No. : 01/09 Page No. 5/16 which suggest that the area is not notified under DRC Act. It has been held by the Hon. Supreme Court of India in IV (2000) SLT 499 titled Mitter Sen Jain Vs. Shakuntala Devi that the notification U/s 1 (2) Proviso of DRC Act is mandatory for the application of DRC Act and merely urbanization U/s 507 of DMC Act is not sufficient.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 213 - V N Khare - Full Document

Brahma Devi vs Krishna Devi on 3 October, 1996

The Hon. High Court of Delhi has also held the same preposition in 65 (1997) DLT 836 titled Smt. Brahma Devi Vs. Krishna Devi. In view of the above said legal preposition, it is clear that the application of DRC Act is not automatic just by urbanization of the area U/s 507 of DMC Act. In the present case, it is clear that the area in which suit property is falling is yet to be notified, accordingly the DRC Act is not applicable in the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1   2 Next