Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.37 seconds)
Chandra Kanta Agarwala vs A.M. Electricals on 5 May, 2016 cites

Santosh Kumar vs Bhai Mool Singh on 5 February, 1958

5. What should be the approach when leave to defend is sought? There appears to be a mistaken belief that unless the tenant at that stage makes out such a strong case as would non­suit the landlord, leave to defend cannot be granted. This approach is wholly improper. When leave to defend is sought, the tenant must make out such a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge and that in our opinion should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action (see Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh). At the stage of granting the leave parties rely in support of their rival contentions on affidavit and assertions and counter­assertions on affidavit may not afford such incontrovertible evidence to lead to an affirmative conclusion one way or the other. Conceding that when possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, an absolute need is not to be satisfied but a mere desire equally is not sufficient. It has to be something more than a mere desire. And being an enabling provision, the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. If as it appears in this case, the landlord is staying at Pathankot, that a house is purchased, may be in the name of his sons and daughters, but there may not be an apparent need to return to Delhi in his old age, a triable issue would come into existence and that was sufficient in our opinion to grant leave to defend in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 409 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Khem Chand & Ors. vs Arjun Jain & Ors. on 13 September, 2013

7. Having drawn my attention on the contents of the application for leave to contest, affidavit of the respondent, affidavit of the petitioner and law laid down in Khem Chand & Ors. Vs. Arjun Jain & Ors. 202 (2013) DLT 613 and Tarun Pahwa Vs. Pradeep Makin 2013 (1) CLJ 801 Del., it is submitted by counsel for the respondent that the present E. No. 972/14 Page no.3/11 application for eviction has been made by the petitioner not for bona-fide reasons but due to malafide reasons as the petitioner does not require the premises bona-fide for her son, who is already in occupation with various companies and earning livelihood. It is also submitted by Ld. counsel for the respondent that he has raised several triable issues in his affidavit and if the respondent is allowed to lead evidence on those issues, the petitioner shall be disentitled from recovering the possession of the premises from the respondent. It is further submitted by Ld. counsel for the respondent that the application for leave to contest be allowed.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 119 - M Singh - Full Document

Gulshan Rai Monga vs Sanjay Malhotra & Ors. on 4 February, 2015

In Gulshan Rai Monga Vs. Sanjay Malhotra & Ors. 2015(1) CLJ 31 (NOC) Del. the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that where a landlord made a categorical statement that he has alternative house or shop, which were neither vacant nor suitable, but the suit premises was suitable for his need or business purpose, court would not interfere because landlord is the best judge or his requirement for residential or business purpose.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 9 - M Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next