Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Bhagwati Prasad Sah vs Radha Kishun Sah And Ors. on 13 February, 1950
On the other hand, Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel for the tenant respondents reiterated the objection that as there was no decree for eviction against the tenant respondents in the manner and under the conditions as laid down under Section 11 of the Act, they cannot be ejected from the suit premises: In support of his contention he relied on the decisions of this court in Mrs. Dharamshila Lall v. Bibi Amna, AIR 1948 Pat 269; Bhagwati Prasad Sah v. Radha Kishun Sah, AIR 1950 Pat 354 and (1959 Pat LR 234).
The Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 12 in The Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Baijnath Prasad Sah vs Ramphal Sahni And Anr. on 24 October, 1961
7. A similar question arose in the case of 1964 BLJR 507 = (AIR 1964 Pat 482). The tenant deferents were impleaded in the redemption suit and decree was passed in favour of the mortgagor for possession against, all the defendants The tenant defendants, raised a plea at the execution stage that they could not be ejected otherwise than under the conditions and in the manner as laid down in Section 11 of the Act. It was held in that case that the tenant, defendants were precluded from putting forward such objection at the execution stage as no such objection was taken in the suit itself and the plea was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. The case of Hira LAL Gupta, 1959 BLJR 234 was also considered in this case and was distinguished.
Jainarayan Sah And Anr. vs Mt. Surat Kuer And Thereafter Mt. ... on 7 April, 1964
The present case is on all fours with Jainaravan Sah's case, 1964 BLJR 507 = (AIR 1964 Pat 482) and the principle laid down in that case is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, in my judgment, the courts below were not right in allowing the tenant respondents 1 to 3 putting forward a claim that they could not be ejected from the suit premises.
1