Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)Section 13 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
M/S. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & ... vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) By ... on 5 January, 2004
As noticed earlier in the present case, facts situation is entirely
different. It is somewhere near to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in India Umbreall (supra). In that case, Hon'ble Supreme
Court was dealing with a situation when a co-owner after having filed the
petition for eviction jointly, subsequently midway wanted to withdraw the
consent, which was not held permissible.
Sharfuddin And Ors. vs Bibi Khatija And Anr. on 6 July, 1987
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also referred
to the previous judgment passed by India Umbrella Manufacturing Co.
(supra) and thereafter examining a Full Bench judgment of Patna High
Court in Sharfuddin and others vs. Bibi Khatija and Another, AIR 1988
Patna, 58, have held that if at the initial stage a co-owner objects to the
filing of the eviction petition, the aforesaid petition is liable to be dismissed.
In that case, Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation when one
8 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2018 16:18:48 :::
Civil Revision No.6275 of 2014 (O&M) -9-
of the co-owner at the very inception, filed an application under Order 7
rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the eviction proceedings.
Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006
Every co-owner is owner to the extent of every inch of
common property. It is well settled that one co-owner can seek eviction of
the tenant if the remaining co-owners do not have any objection. The
consent for filing the petition can be expressed or implied. Once a petition
has been filed by one co-owner and allwoed, order of eviction cannot be
permitted to be defeated by other co-owner. Learned Appellate Authority
has relied upon judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Mohinder
Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2 SCC 724 and T.
Lakshmipathi v. P.Nithyananda Reddy, (2003) 5 SCC 150 to hold that any
objection taken by a co-owner at any point of time objecting to the eviction
petition would result in dismissal thereof.
Section 111 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Gurbaj Singh vs Parshotam Singh And Others on 31 May, 2011
Landlady appeared in the evidence and reiterated the
requirement of the premises for her son. It has come in evidence that the
son is at present doing his business of fish aquarium from his residence.
Even when the tenant appeared in evidence he admitted that Anupam
Sehgal deals in the business of fish aquarium. Hence, Rent Controller
ordered eviction on the ground of personal necessity. However, learned
Appellate Authority reversed the ground of personal necessity
With regard to first reason, it may be noted that such objection
was never taken by the tenant before the Rent Controller. Had such
objection been taken by the landlady would have filed amended petition to
cure the formal defect. Once that objection has not been taken, the tenant
cannot be permitted to raise objection at the appellate stage. The aforesaid
aspect has been considered in detail by this court in the case of Gurbaj
Singh vs. Parshotam Singh and others 2011 (3) PLR 653 and Amrik
Singh and another vs. R.R.Gulati & Other 2011(3) PLR 572, wherein four
questions were framed and answered by the court and it was held that non-
compliance of mandatory provision of the Act once not objected in the
reply, cannot defeat the right of the landlord. The questions which have
11 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2018 16:18:48 :::
Civil Revision No.6275 of 2014 (O&M) -12-
been framed by the court while deciding aforesaid cases are extracted as
under:-
T.Lakshmipathi & Ors vs P.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors on 31 March, 2003
Every co-owner is owner to the extent of every inch of
common property. It is well settled that one co-owner can seek eviction of
the tenant if the remaining co-owners do not have any objection. The
consent for filing the petition can be expressed or implied. Once a petition
has been filed by one co-owner and allwoed, order of eviction cannot be
permitted to be defeated by other co-owner. Learned Appellate Authority
has relied upon judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Mohinder
Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2 SCC 724 and T.
Lakshmipathi v. P.Nithyananda Reddy, (2003) 5 SCC 150 to hold that any
objection taken by a co-owner at any point of time objecting to the eviction
petition would result in dismissal thereof.
Amrik Singh And Another vs R.R.Gulati And Others on 4 July, 2011
Landlady appeared in the evidence and reiterated the
requirement of the premises for her son. It has come in evidence that the
son is at present doing his business of fish aquarium from his residence.
Even when the tenant appeared in evidence he admitted that Anupam
Sehgal deals in the business of fish aquarium. Hence, Rent Controller
ordered eviction on the ground of personal necessity. However, learned
Appellate Authority reversed the ground of personal necessity
With regard to first reason, it may be noted that such objection
was never taken by the tenant before the Rent Controller. Had such
objection been taken by the landlady would have filed amended petition to
cure the formal defect. Once that objection has not been taken, the tenant
cannot be permitted to raise objection at the appellate stage. The aforesaid
aspect has been considered in detail by this court in the case of Gurbaj
Singh vs. Parshotam Singh and others 2011 (3) PLR 653 and Amrik
Singh and another vs. R.R.Gulati & Other 2011(3) PLR 572, wherein four
questions were framed and answered by the court and it was held that non-
compliance of mandatory provision of the Act once not objected in the
reply, cannot defeat the right of the landlord. The questions which have
11 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2018 16:18:48 :::
Civil Revision No.6275 of 2014 (O&M) -12-
been framed by the court while deciding aforesaid cases are extracted as
under:-
Mangal Builders And Enterprise Ltd. & ... vs Williamson Magor & Company Ltd. & Anr on 31 July, 2014
This
court has carefully read the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mangal Buildiders (supra).
1