Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)Madras Bangalore Transport Co. (West) vs Inder Singh And Ors. on 5 May, 1986
(4) It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that though it was admitted that appellant no. 3 was in physical possession of the premises in question, the landlord had to prove legal parting of possession the premises by appellants 1 & 2. Learned counsel relied on Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri & Others, , Mis Madras Bangalore Transport Company (West) v. Inder Singh & Others, , Vishwa Nath & Another v. Chaman Lal Khanna & Another, Mohan Khanna & Others v. Jai Prakash & Another, 117, 1978 (2) Rcj 99 and Chander Kishore Sharma & Another v. Kampa Wall, in support of his contention that unless it is proved that the original tenant has parted with possession to the alleged sub-tenant, order of eviction cannot be passed on the ground of sub-letting. Learned counsel submitted that though the appellants had not produced the partnership deed and the account books, the income-tax assessment orders for the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 were produced and there was enough evidence to prove that there was a partnership between appellants 1 & 2 and appellant no. 3. Learned counsel submitted that though in the present case there was a partnership deed executed between the parties and the same was also registered, it was not necessary to produce the partnership deed because even if an oral partnership was claimed, once the income-tax assessment orders were filed, no further evidence was required. Learned counsel further submitted that the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two courts in a second appeal in a landlord tenant matter and dismiss the eviction petition.
Vishwa Nath And Anr. vs Chaman Lal Khanna And Anr. on 19 March, 1975
(4) It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that though it was admitted that appellant no. 3 was in physical possession of the premises in question, the landlord had to prove legal parting of possession the premises by appellants 1 & 2. Learned counsel relied on Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri & Others, , Mis Madras Bangalore Transport Company (West) v. Inder Singh & Others, , Vishwa Nath & Another v. Chaman Lal Khanna & Another, Mohan Khanna & Others v. Jai Prakash & Another, 117, 1978 (2) Rcj 99 and Chander Kishore Sharma & Another v. Kampa Wall, in support of his contention that unless it is proved that the original tenant has parted with possession to the alleged sub-tenant, order of eviction cannot be passed on the ground of sub-letting. Learned counsel submitted that though the appellants had not produced the partnership deed and the account books, the income-tax assessment orders for the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 were produced and there was enough evidence to prove that there was a partnership between appellants 1 & 2 and appellant no. 3. Learned counsel submitted that though in the present case there was a partnership deed executed between the parties and the same was also registered, it was not necessary to produce the partnership deed because even if an oral partnership was claimed, once the income-tax assessment orders were filed, no further evidence was required. Learned counsel further submitted that the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two courts in a second appeal in a landlord tenant matter and dismiss the eviction petition.
Inder Mohan Kahanna And Ors. vs Jai Parkash And Anr. on 17 May, 1978
(4) It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that though it was admitted that appellant no. 3 was in physical possession of the premises in question, the landlord had to prove legal parting of possession the premises by appellants 1 & 2. Learned counsel relied on Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri & Others, , Mis Madras Bangalore Transport Company (West) v. Inder Singh & Others, , Vishwa Nath & Another v. Chaman Lal Khanna & Another, Mohan Khanna & Others v. Jai Prakash & Another, 117, 1978 (2) Rcj 99 and Chander Kishore Sharma & Another v. Kampa Wall, in support of his contention that unless it is proved that the original tenant has parted with possession to the alleged sub-tenant, order of eviction cannot be passed on the ground of sub-letting. Learned counsel submitted that though the appellants had not produced the partnership deed and the account books, the income-tax assessment orders for the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 were produced and there was enough evidence to prove that there was a partnership between appellants 1 & 2 and appellant no. 3. Learned counsel submitted that though in the present case there was a partnership deed executed between the parties and the same was also registered, it was not necessary to produce the partnership deed because even if an oral partnership was claimed, once the income-tax assessment orders were filed, no further evidence was required. Learned counsel further submitted that the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two courts in a second appeal in a landlord tenant matter and dismiss the eviction petition.
Chander Kishore Sharma And Anr. vs Kampa Wati on 4 July, 1983
(4) It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that though it was admitted that appellant no. 3 was in physical possession of the premises in question, the landlord had to prove legal parting of possession the premises by appellants 1 & 2. Learned counsel relied on Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri & Others, , Mis Madras Bangalore Transport Company (West) v. Inder Singh & Others, , Vishwa Nath & Another v. Chaman Lal Khanna & Another, Mohan Khanna & Others v. Jai Prakash & Another, 117, 1978 (2) Rcj 99 and Chander Kishore Sharma & Another v. Kampa Wall, in support of his contention that unless it is proved that the original tenant has parted with possession to the alleged sub-tenant, order of eviction cannot be passed on the ground of sub-letting. Learned counsel submitted that though the appellants had not produced the partnership deed and the account books, the income-tax assessment orders for the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 were produced and there was enough evidence to prove that there was a partnership between appellants 1 & 2 and appellant no. 3. Learned counsel submitted that though in the present case there was a partnership deed executed between the parties and the same was also registered, it was not necessary to produce the partnership deed because even if an oral partnership was claimed, once the income-tax assessment orders were filed, no further evidence was required. Learned counsel further submitted that the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two courts in a second appeal in a landlord tenant matter and dismiss the eviction petition.
Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty on 30 July, 1987
(8) Ordinarily the High Court in a second appeal does not interfere with the concurrent finding of facts. However, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Banerjee (supra) if the essential ingredients necessary for finding of a fact have not in fact been found by the courts below, then the court is bound to examine the question where injustice or wrong is done. The burden of showing that the concurrent decision of two or more courts or tribunals is manifestly unjust lies on the appellants. The fact that the partnership was constituted after the filing of the eviction petition, prima-facie gives an impression that the partnership was formed because of the eviction petition. Now to dispel that impression the onus lay entirely on the tenant. From the evidence on record, I find that the finding of both the courts below does not suffer from any illegality because the appellants have miserably failed to discharge that onus. Excepting the income-tax assessment orders, there is no document on record which can prove the partnership. Once the appellants fail to prove partnership, the possession of appellant no. 3 cannot be explained. It thus amounts to clear parting of possession by appellants no. 1 & 2 to appellant no. 3. If the genuineness of partnership had been proved, the appellants 1 & 2 could have still maintained that they had not parted with legal possession. But having failed to prove the partnership, the ground for eviction under Section 14(l)(b) was clearly made out.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Helper Girdhiarbhai vs Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri And ... on 6 May, 1987
(4) It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that though it was admitted that appellant no. 3 was in physical possession of the premises in question, the landlord had to prove legal parting of possession the premises by appellants 1 & 2. Learned counsel relied on Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri & Others, , Mis Madras Bangalore Transport Company (West) v. Inder Singh & Others, , Vishwa Nath & Another v. Chaman Lal Khanna & Another, Mohan Khanna & Others v. Jai Prakash & Another, 117, 1978 (2) Rcj 99 and Chander Kishore Sharma & Another v. Kampa Wall, in support of his contention that unless it is proved that the original tenant has parted with possession to the alleged sub-tenant, order of eviction cannot be passed on the ground of sub-letting. Learned counsel submitted that though the appellants had not produced the partnership deed and the account books, the income-tax assessment orders for the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 were produced and there was enough evidence to prove that there was a partnership between appellants 1 & 2 and appellant no. 3. Learned counsel submitted that though in the present case there was a partnership deed executed between the parties and the same was also registered, it was not necessary to produce the partnership deed because even if an oral partnership was claimed, once the income-tax assessment orders were filed, no further evidence was required. Learned counsel further submitted that the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two courts in a second appeal in a landlord tenant matter and dismiss the eviction petition.
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
1