Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (2.76 seconds)
Pran Nath Chopra vs Om Prakash on 9 February, 2012 cites

M/S. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & ... vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) By ... on 5 January, 2004

13. Having drawn my attention on the contents of the application for eviction of tenant, written statement filed on behalf of respondent Mr. Om Prakash, testimony of AW1 Mr. Pran Nath Chopra, documents Ex. A/1 to Ex. A/4, Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/4, Ex. RW2/1, Ex. RW2/2 and the law laid down in N. K. Rustagi v. K. S. Gupta and others, 1993 (2) RCR 142, S. Jagir Singh v. S. Vasava Singh, 48 (1992) DLT 113, Budh Ram and others v. Bansi and others, V (2010) SLT 723, Shankara Co­op Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar and others, IV (2011) SLT 565, M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Company and others v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by LRs Smt. Savitri Agarwalla, 2004 (1) RCR 154, Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, 2006 (1) RCR 250, Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh by legal representatives and others, 1989 (2) RCR 331, Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagan Nath and others, 1976 RCR 832, J. Kumaradasan Nair and another v. Iric Sohan and others, II (2009) SLT 196 and Asfaq Qureshi v. Aysha Qureshi, 2011 (2) RCR (civil) 478 it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that from the evidence led by the parties grounds for eviction against the respondent and his legal representatives have been proved and therefore, eviction order be passed. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicant that although in the caption of the application it has not been mentioned by the applicant that the possession has also been sought on the ground E. No. 07/09 Page no. 8 of 22 prescribed in clause (h) of proviso to sub­section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 but in paragraph no.18 (a) (i) of the application for eviction it has been mentioned that the respondent had acquired vacant possession of a premises and therefore ignoring the fact that the ground mentioned in clause
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 321 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Ganpat Ram Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Gayatri Devi on 17 July, 1987

31. As per the record of the present case the present application for eviction was made on 05.6.2003 after expiry of 12 year limitation period held to be applicable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganpat Ram Sharma's case (supra). The applicant, under competent legal advice, must have been aware about the fact that his application for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (h) of proviso to sub­section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 was time barred at the time of the making of present application for eviction. In this overall scenario the contention of the E. No. 07/09 Page no. 17 of 22 applicant that an eviction order be passed on the ground prescribed in clause
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 94 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next