Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Babhutmal Raichand Oswal vs Laxmibai Raghunath Tarte on 19 November, 1971
In Nagendra Nath Bora and Anr. v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, and Ors., , it has been observed that the High Court should not interfere simply because the Courts below had viewed the matter in a light which is not acceptable to it. In Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxamibai R. Tarte and Anr., the Apex Court deprecated the exercise of powers under Article 227 by the High Court even where the latter was of the opinion that the Lower Court had misread the evidence.
Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri & Ors vs Bhaskar Balwant Aher (D) Through Lrs. C on 1 March, 2000
Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh on 15 December, 2000
In Inder jeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, 2000 (3) 397 the Apex Court has recently clarified that if a prima facie case is made out by the Tenant, the ARC should not embark on a pretrial but should grant leave to contest. The following observations should be noted:-
Section 38 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Devi Singh vs Chaman Lal Itorora on 12 July, 1977
5. In the present case the Petition has been filed against the order granting to the Tenant leave to contest the eviction petition. A Civil Revision has been held not to be maintainable in these circumstances. Reference is drawn to Shri Devi Singh v. Shri Chaman Lal, 1977 Rajdhani Law Reporter 566, where it was observed as follows:
Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhattal (Retd.) vs Rakesh Kumar Jain on 9 April, 1996
2. A disturbing trend can be perceived in the manner in which the Controllers are disposing-off applications for 'leave to contest'. Detailed Orders are passed at this stage itself. In doing so, the ARC is essentially finally deciding the disputed questions raised by the Tenant on the explanation given by the Landlord in his reply which exercise should be carried out after the trial. This approach is to be deprecated. In a given case the Tenant may deny the ownership of the Landlord but if a copy of the Sale Deed is produced, or if it is the Landlord who had put the Tenant into possession, such grounds could rightly not be construed as having disclosed a prima facie case warranting a trial. But, to expand the illustration further, if the Tenant produces a document to the effect that the Landlord has divested or proposes to divert/transfer his ownership to a third party, and the Landlord puts forward an explanation which appears to be plausible, yet leave to contest the petition should be granted to the Tenant, since a prima facie case has been shown to exist which can be conclusively be decided only after considering in evidence on the record. Of course if the Court is of the opinion that such a plea is only a device to delay, he should reject the Tenant's application. The case of Col Surinder Pal v. Rakesh Kumar, 1996 RLR 361 recommends this approach.