Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
The legal position has been once again expounded in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. JT 2003 (6) SC 465.
Kailash Kumar And Ors. vs R.L. Kapur on 21 April, 1994
11. It may be stated that in Kailash Kumar and Ors. v. Dr. R.P. Kapur it has been held that the question of subletting or parting with possession would depend on the peculiar facts of each case and the basic principle enunciated even by the Supreme Court is that once it is proved that a particular portion of the demised premises has been given in exclusive possession to a stranger, then the onus shifts on the tenant to show in what capacity the stranger is in exclusive possession of that portion and on the failure of the tenant to explain presence of such person in exclusive possession of that said portion of the demised premises, presumption would arise that the portion was sublet or parted with possession in favor of the stranger by the tenant.
Hari Ram vs Rukmani Devi on 29 October, 1996
The observations in Hari Ram v. Rukmani Devi and Ors. are also relevant. On the plea of the tenant that the onus was on the landlord to prove subletting, it was observed that the relationship of sub-lessees and lessee is a matter of knowledge, which is confined to the parties alone and thus all that the landlord can do in such circumstances is to prove the circumstances which would reasonably lead to an inference of subletting or parting with possession or assigning the premises or any part thereof.
Hazari Lal And Ors. vs Giasi Ram And Ors. on 30 March, 1971
13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hazari Lal and Ram Babu v. Shri Gian Ram and Ors. 1972 RCR 74 to advance the plea that where legal possession is retained of a tenant there is no parting with possession and mere user by other person is not such a parting with possession.
Madras Bangalore Transport Co. (West) vs Inder Singh And Ors. on 5 May, 1986
Learned Counsel also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Madras Bangalore Transport Company (West) v. Inder Singh and Ors. . The issue relating to subletting between a firm and a limited company was considered and it was found that where the firm established a limited company with its partners as Directors, it could not be said that subletting was made out even though both of them were separate legal entities.
Munna Lal (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs Suraj Bhan And Ors. on 4 March, 1975
14. Learned Counsel lastly referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagan Nath (Deceased) through LRs v. Chander Bhan and Ors. to contend that a user by other person is not parting with possession so long as the tenant retains the legal possession himself or in other words there must be vesting of possession by the tenant in another person by divesting himself not only of physical possession but also of the right to possession.
Section 38 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983
9. An important aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the legislature in its wisdom has amended the said Act whereby the appeal to the Tribunal under Section 38 of the said Act has been confined to only a question of law and second appeal to this Court has been abolished. In view thereof the scrutiny by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based. The Apex Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. had in fact observed that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts is limited to seeing that an inferior court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law.