Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Sh. R.C.Jain vs Sh. Mohinder Jeet Singh on 5 May, 2009 cites

Tek Chand Narula & Others vs Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. on 15 September, 2000

In Tek Chand Narula & Ors. Vs. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. reported in 88 (2000) DLT 261 relied upon by the defendant, the lease had not come to an end by efflux of time as in the present case. In the present case, apart from the lease, coming to an end by efflux of time, a valid 6/10 7 legal notice dt.12.10.2008 was also served, terminating the alleged month to month tenancy, if any. In the present case, the pleas taken by the defendant in his reply to the application u/o.12 Rule 6 R/w. Section 151 CPC and in his Written Statement are frivolous and have been devised to delay the eviction and delivery of possession of the premises to the landlord/plaintiff. Thus, the admissions made in the Written Statement are held to be clear, unambiguous and unequivocable.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - V Sen - Full Document

Dunlop India Ltd. vs Shri Sunil Puri And Others on 20 December, 2000

"Assuming that there was an oral arrangement not to evict the defendant till 2007, even in that case the defendant cannot successfully resist a suit for possession by the plaintiff in as much as the said oral arrangement was not made a part of the registered lease deed. No benefit or advantage could be taken by the defendant of the alleged oral understanding as a defence to a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction of the defendant. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act require that a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving yearly rent can be made only by a registered instrument. In the absence of any registered instrument incorporating the alleged oral understanding, this plea itself will be of no avail and on this plea a suit for possession 7/10 8 cannot be resisted."
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - M Mudgal - Full Document
1