Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.38 seconds)

Chandu Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 November, 1977

In Chandu Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1978 Delhi 174 a Full bench of this court noted that the intention of the parties is the real test for ascertaining the character of a document. If the document gives only a right to use the property in a particular way but its possession and control remains with the owner thereof, it will be a license. In such a case the legal possession remains with the owner of the property, the licensee being permitted to make use of the property for a particular purpose. It would therefore be seen that but for the permission the licensee's possession would be unlawful. Exclusive possession does not militate against the concept of a license, if the circumstances negative any intention to create a tenancy. The Court further noted that license was for a period of 11 months in the first instance, and thereafter for such term of renewal as may be mutually agreed C.R.P. 9/2015 Page 3 of 7 from time to time, the benefit of license was neither transferable nor heritable, the license was liable to be cancelled without assigning reasons and the corporation was entitled to resume exclusive possession after revocation of the license. Thus various clauses of the deed indicated that the intention of the parties was apparent that what was going to be auctioned was licensee rights and not tenancy rights. A lease is not a mere contract but envisages and transfers an interest in the demised property creating a right in favour of the lessee „in rem‟. A license only makes an action lawful which without it would be unlawful, but does not transfer any interest in favor of the licensee in respect of the property. The Full Bench further noted the three principles of grant of temporary injunction i.e. (1) on making out a prima facie case, (2) on showing balance of convenience in petitioners‟ favour, in that the refusal of the injunction would cause greater inconvenience to them and (3) whether on refusal of the injunction they would suffer irreparable loss. It was thus held that before temporary injunction is granted, the petitioners are bound to show that they have a legal right and there was an invasion of that right.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 74 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Lallu Yeshwant Singh vs Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors on 29 November, 1967

Referring to the decisions in M/s Anamallai Club (supra) and Lallu Yashwant Singh Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors. [(1968) 2 SCR 203] this Court noted that these decisions do not specifically deal with the situation where the unlawful occupant has not yet been "dispossessed" but, he in apprehension of such "dispossession", knowing his occupation to be unlawful, rushes to court for an injunction restraining the rightful owner from taking any steps towards physically ejecting him. Now, the grant of injunction is based on equitable principles. Injunction itself being an equitable remedy, one of the principles which is well settled is that a person who seeks equity must come to court with clean hands and must himself do equity. This Court further considered the expressions " due process of law", "due course of law" and "recourse to law" which have been interchangeably used in the various decisions and came to the conclusion that the moment the rights of parties are adjudicated upon by the Court of competent jurisdiction the bare minimum requirement of "due process" or "due course of law"
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 202 - S M Sikri - Full Document

M/S. Anamallai Club vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 23 October, 1996

Referring to the decisions in M/s Anamallai Club (supra) and Lallu Yashwant Singh Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors. [(1968) 2 SCR 203] this Court noted that these decisions do not specifically deal with the situation where the unlawful occupant has not yet been "dispossessed" but, he in apprehension of such "dispossession", knowing his occupation to be unlawful, rushes to court for an injunction restraining the rightful owner from taking any steps towards physically ejecting him. Now, the grant of injunction is based on equitable principles. Injunction itself being an equitable remedy, one of the principles which is well settled is that a person who seeks equity must come to court with clean hands and must himself do equity. This Court further considered the expressions " due process of law", "due course of law" and "recourse to law" which have been interchangeably used in the various decisions and came to the conclusion that the moment the rights of parties are adjudicated upon by the Court of competent jurisdiction the bare minimum requirement of "due process" or "due course of law"
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 48 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Rattan Lal Aggarwal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors. on 4 July, 2011

Distinguishing the case of Rattan Lal (supra), this Court noted that Rattan Lal was in settled possession of the premises since November, 1976 and had raised construction, though with permission of the respondent. Therefore, it appeared that the license was of the nature of an irrevocable license taking into consideration the provisions of Section 60(b) of the Indian Easement Act, 1882. When that was the position, clearly, the license could not have been revoked and the licensee was, in any event, entitled to an injunction against dispossession.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 9 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Thomas Cook (India) Limited vs Hotel Imperial And Ors. on 9 January, 2006

In the facts of the case in Thomas Cook (supra) it was held that the plaintiff therein only had a right to use the two rooms, the plaintiff was obligated to leave the keys of the room at the reception at the close of each day, the plaintiff was charged a daily tariff; the control and possession of the C.R.P. 9/2015 Page 5 of 7 rooms was explicitly retained by the defendants; the rights of admission were reserved with the defendants and thus it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the defendants therein had parted with possession or that the plaintiff was in possession of the said two rooms, even during the period prior to the revocation of the license.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 131 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1