Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.30 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 27 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Ganpat Ram Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Gayatri Devi on 17 July, 1987
In another case titled as Ganpat Ram Sharma & Ors vs
Smt. Gayatri Devi 1987 SCR (3) 539; it was observed that:
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
"This question come up for consideration in two
cases before this court in Shyam Sunder vs. Khan Chand
1966 DLT 223 and Revti Devi vs. Kishan Lal, 2 nd appeal
from order No. 92-B of 1964 reported in 1970 RCR 71.
Nihal Singh vs Dalip Singh Lamba on 8 August, 1994
The judgment of this
court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) will not be of any
assistance to the tenant in view of the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Mohini Bhadwar
(supra). (12) I do not find any merit also in the contention
urged by the learned counsel for the tenant that the
landlord was not quick in taking action against the tenant
after the accrual of cause of action.
Delhi Jal Board vs Surendra P. Malik on 24 March, 2003
Delhi Jal
Board vs Surendra P. Malik on 24 March, 2003 12. It is no
longer a grey area that where a tenancy had otherwise
expired by efflux of time but the tenant continued in
possession of the premises, mere acceptance of rent by
the landlord could neither renew the tenancy nor create a
new one. That is so because such subsequent occupation
of premises was not in pursuance of any contract, express
or implied between the parties. It could at best be by virtue
of the protection granted by a statute like Delhi Rent
Control Act so long the tenancy fell within its purview but
once the tenancy was out of its protection shield, it was
not required to be determined by notice under Section 106
of TPA as it stood already determined by efflux of time
under Section 111 of that Act.
Ujagar Singh vs Likha Singh And Anr. on 24 September, 1940
See also Ujagar Singh v. Likha
Singh and another, A.I.R. 1941 Allahabad 28 at page 30.
The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
in Somdass (deceased). v Rikhu Dev Chela Bawa Har
Jagdass Narokari, Punjab Law Re- porter Vol. 85., 184
held that in a suit for possession under Article 113 of the
Limitation Act, material date is one on which the right to
sue for possession arises."
Avinash Kaur vs Beli Ram on 23 September, 1970
In Avinash Kaur vs Beli Ram , ILR 1970 Delhi 651; it
was observed that :-
Indian Cable Company Limited vs Prem Chandra Sharma on 5 May, 1989
ARC No. 25307/16 Smt. Asha Khanna vs. Mrs. Veena Trikha
-17-
In another case titled as Indian Cable Company Limited
vs Prem Chandra Sharma , 1989 RLR 495; it was observed
that:-