Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Rameshwar Lal Sharma vs Sardar Amrik Singh on 21 September, 1973 cites

Kumar Raj Krishna Prosad Lal Singh Deo vs Barabani Coal Concern Ltd. And Ors. on 20 July, 1934

In the case of Krishna Prosad Lal Singha v. Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd., 18 Pat LT 739 = (AIR 1937 PC 251) their Lordships of the Judicial Committee considered the effect of the Section and observed that the Section does not deal or profess to deal with all kinds of estoppel which may arise between landlord and tenant, it deals with one cardinal and simple estoppel and. states it first as applicable between landlord and tenant and then as between lessor and lessee. Their Lordships held that in case of an ordinary lease, the Section applies against the lessee, any assignee of the term and any sub-lessee or licensee. They observed, however, that the principle does not apply to disentitle a tenant to dispute the derivative title of one who claims to have since become entitled to reversion, though in such cases there may be other grounds of estoppel, for example, by attornment, acceptance of rent etc. It will thus appear that the principle contained in Section 116 of the Evidence Act applies to the title of the landlord who 'let the tenant in' as distinct from any other person claiming to be reversioner.
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 73 - Full Document

Mahabir Ram vs Shiva Shanker Prasad And Ors. on 16 January, 1968

In the case of Mahabir Ram, 1968 BLJR 447 = (AIR 1968 Pat 415) (FB) (supra), the question was whether the defence regarding the eviction of a tenant under Section 11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') having been struck down, the defendant had a right to out questions to the plaintiff's witnesses on the question of title. Tarkeshwar Nath. J., who delivered the judgment of the Full Bench held that the moment a defendant in such a suit takes the defence that he is not a tenant of the plaintiff landlord and no relationship of landlord and tenant was ever created, the position is that such a defence is taken by him not in the capacity of a tenant, and, therefore, even on the striking out of his defence against ejectment he cannot be debarred from cross-examining the plaintiff's witnesses on the question of title. The question which fell for decision by their Lordships was not as to whether where the relationship of landlord and tenant is proved, it is still open to the defendant to set up his own or somebody else's title. This case is, therefore, of no avail to the appellant.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 30 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1