Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Smt. Narmada Joshi vs Sh. Laxmi Narayan Gupta on 26 February, 2008 cites

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

3. The petitioner has further relied on three decisions of this Court in Abdul Hamid and Anr. v. Nur Mohammad , Hari Mohan Nehru v. Rameshwar Dayal , Mohd. Usman v. Shahzad Begum and Ors. to contend that since the landlord had not disclosed, and had concealed the other residential accommodation available to him from the court, by not making a reference to the same in the pleadings, the claim of the landlord for bona fide requirement of residence cannot be accepted.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

Hari Mohan Nehru vs Rameshwar Dayal on 4 February, 1980

3. The petitioner has further relied on three decisions of this Court in Abdul Hamid and Anr. v. Nur Mohammad , Hari Mohan Nehru v. Rameshwar Dayal , Mohd. Usman v. Shahzad Begum and Ors. to contend that since the landlord had not disclosed, and had concealed the other residential accommodation available to him from the court, by not making a reference to the same in the pleadings, the claim of the landlord for bona fide requirement of residence cannot be accepted.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999

4. On the other hand, the submission of the respondent landlord is that the factum of the ownership of the aforesaid flat by the son of the respondent/landlord was firstly not a material fact, inasmuch as, that flat is not owned by the landlord and in any case, admittedly, the said flat is not a reasonably suitable accommodation available to the landlord. The respondent has relied on the two decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his submissions, that is, M.L. Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singal 2001(2) SCC 355 and Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta .
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 974 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Mohd. Usman vs Shahzad Begum And Ors. on 27 July, 1988

3. The petitioner has further relied on three decisions of this Court in Abdul Hamid and Anr. v. Nur Mohammad , Hari Mohan Nehru v. Rameshwar Dayal , Mohd. Usman v. Shahzad Begum and Ors. to contend that since the landlord had not disclosed, and had concealed the other residential accommodation available to him from the court, by not making a reference to the same in the pleadings, the claim of the landlord for bona fide requirement of residence cannot be accepted.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1