Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
13. Respondents filed rejoinder and allegations leveled by the
petitioner were controverted and rebutted. The averments made in
application for leave to defend have been reiterated and reaffirmed. Reliance
is placed upon judgments delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
cases of Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh, (2001) 1 SCC 706; Charan Dass
Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand, (1983) 1 SCC 301; Prativa Rani (Smt) Vs. T.V.
E410/2013 Page 12/28
Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353; Santosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran in Civil
Appeal No. 412 of 2000 (decided on 17.01.2000); Sarla Ahuja Vs. United
India Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 100; Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs.
Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222 and judgment delivered by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Santosh Vaid & Anr., petitioners
Vs. Uttam Chand, respondent and Amrit Lal Ghai, appellant Vs. Darshan
Singh, respondent, 188 (2012) DLT 293 (DB).
Sudershan Dutta vs Krishan Narain And Ors. on 23 May, 1997
A plot falling in Khasra No.
9/20, Swaroop Nagar was purchased by the husband of the petitioner which
was disposed of on 16.03.2006. The respondents had paid rent to the
petitioner in the court of Sh. Vidya Prakash, the then Judge Small Causes
Court in suit no. 37/2008. Therefore, the respondents cannot dispute the title
E410/2013 Page 11/28
of the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon judgments delivered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the cases of J. Chattergee Vs. Mohinder Kaur,
2000 RLR 561 (SC); Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company
Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119; Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta,
AIR 1999 SC 2507 and judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in the cases of Sudershan Dutta Vs. Krishan Narain, 1997 RLR 534;
Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors., 155 (2008) DLT
383; Mahendra Trivedi Vs. Jai Prakash Verma, 157 (2009) DLT 690;
Ramseh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 and V.S. Sachdeva
Vs. M.L. Grover, 1997 RLR 439.
V.S. Sachdeva vs M.L. Grover on 30 May, 1997
A plot falling in Khasra No.
9/20, Swaroop Nagar was purchased by the husband of the petitioner which
was disposed of on 16.03.2006. The respondents had paid rent to the
petitioner in the court of Sh. Vidya Prakash, the then Judge Small Causes
Court in suit no. 37/2008. Therefore, the respondents cannot dispute the title
E410/2013 Page 11/28
of the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon judgments delivered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the cases of J. Chattergee Vs. Mohinder Kaur,
2000 RLR 561 (SC); Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company
Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119; Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta,
AIR 1999 SC 2507 and judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in the cases of Sudershan Dutta Vs. Krishan Narain, 1997 RLR 534;
Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors., 155 (2008) DLT
383; Mahendra Trivedi Vs. Jai Prakash Verma, 157 (2009) DLT 690;
Ramseh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 and V.S. Sachdeva
Vs. M.L. Grover, 1997 RLR 439.
Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh on 15 December, 2000
13. Respondents filed rejoinder and allegations leveled by the
petitioner were controverted and rebutted. The averments made in
application for leave to defend have been reiterated and reaffirmed. Reliance
is placed upon judgments delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
cases of Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh, (2001) 1 SCC 706; Charan Dass
Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand, (1983) 1 SCC 301; Prativa Rani (Smt) Vs. T.V.
E410/2013 Page 12/28
Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353; Santosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran in Civil
Appeal No. 412 of 2000 (decided on 17.01.2000); Sarla Ahuja Vs. United
India Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 100; Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs.
Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222 and judgment delivered by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Santosh Vaid & Anr., petitioners
Vs. Uttam Chand, respondent and Amrit Lal Ghai, appellant Vs. Darshan
Singh, respondent, 188 (2012) DLT 293 (DB).
J. Chatterjee vs Mohinder Kaur Uppal & Anr. on 29 September, 2000
A plot falling in Khasra No.
9/20, Swaroop Nagar was purchased by the husband of the petitioner which
was disposed of on 16.03.2006. The respondents had paid rent to the
petitioner in the court of Sh. Vidya Prakash, the then Judge Small Causes
Court in suit no. 37/2008. Therefore, the respondents cannot dispute the title
E410/2013 Page 11/28
of the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon judgments delivered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the cases of J. Chattergee Vs. Mohinder Kaur,
2000 RLR 561 (SC); Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company
Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119; Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta,
AIR 1999 SC 2507 and judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in the cases of Sudershan Dutta Vs. Krishan Narain, 1997 RLR 534;
Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors., 155 (2008) DLT
383; Mahendra Trivedi Vs. Jai Prakash Verma, 157 (2009) DLT 690;
Ramseh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 and V.S. Sachdeva
Vs. M.L. Grover, 1997 RLR 439.
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
13. Respondents filed rejoinder and allegations leveled by the
petitioner were controverted and rebutted. The averments made in
application for leave to defend have been reiterated and reaffirmed. Reliance
is placed upon judgments delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
cases of Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh, (2001) 1 SCC 706; Charan Dass
Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand, (1983) 1 SCC 301; Prativa Rani (Smt) Vs. T.V.
E410/2013 Page 12/28
Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353; Santosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran in Civil
Appeal No. 412 of 2000 (decided on 17.01.2000); Sarla Ahuja Vs. United
India Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 100; Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs.
Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222 and judgment delivered by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Santosh Vaid & Anr., petitioners
Vs. Uttam Chand, respondent and Amrit Lal Ghai, appellant Vs. Darshan
Singh, respondent, 188 (2012) DLT 293 (DB).
Precision Steel And Engineering Works ... vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal on 7 October, 1982
In Precision Metal & Engg. Works Vs. Prema Deva, Niranjan
Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518, it has been held that "while deciding the
application for leave to contest, the controller has to confine himself to the
affidavit filed by the tenant under Sub Section (4) and the reply if any. On
perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by the
landlord, the controller has to pose to himself the only question, "Does the
affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from
obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in
clause of the proviso to Section 14 (1)?". The controller is not to record a
finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of
affidavits against the other set of affidavits."
Rita Lal vs Raj Kumar Singh on 13 September, 2002
In Rita Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh (2002) 7 SCC 614, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under :
E410/2013 Page 14/28
"If the Court is satisfied that though in the pleadings an issue is
raised but that is not a triable issue then the Court is justified in refusing the
leave to defend. A defence, which is practically moonshine, sham or illusory
can not be held to be raising a triable issue. Else the whole purpose behind
enacting a provision for granting leave to defend, and not permitting a
contest unless leave was granted, would stand defeated."
Ownership
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008
19. Purpose of letting has become redundant as in Satyawati Sharma
Vs. Union of India 148 (2008) DLT 705 Supreme Court, it has been held
that the premises let out either for residential or for commercial purposes can
be got vacated by the landlord for bonafide requirements. Moreover,
admittedly, the tenanted premises is a residential one.
Availability or NonAvailability of alternative suitable accommodation
in Delhi