Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.62 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Vasudev Gopalkrishna Tamwekar vs The Board Of Liquidators Happyhome ... on 10 May, 1963
49. Then in the same judgment, the learned single Judge has also quoted the following observations from the Full Bench case of this Court in Dattatraya Krishna v. Jairam Ganesh. The observations are:
Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963
Although he has no doubt made a reference to some of them in his judgment, it appears that in his judgment in Shantilal Kalidas v. Lallubhai in support of his view the learned Judge relied upon the following observations of Sarkar J. in Raizada's case, which appear at p. 114:
The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Dattatraya Krishna Jangam vs Jairam Ganesh Gore on 4 September, 1964
49. Then in the same judgment, the learned single Judge has also quoted the following observations from the Full Bench case of this Court in Dattatraya Krishna v. Jairam Ganesh. The observations are:
Section 5 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Govindram Salamatrai And Anr. vs Dharampal Amarnath And Anr. on 26 February, 1951
In Govindram Salamatrai v. Dharampal this question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of two eminent Judges, viz. the Chief Justice Mr. M.C. Chagla and Mr. Justice Bhagwati, (as he then was). In that case the plaintiffs had filed a suit on the original side of the High Court against the defendants alleging that they were licensees of certain property in the possession of the plaintiffs and that the licence had been properly and legally terminated and that they were entitled to an order of Eviction against the defendants. The contention of the defendants was that they were not licensees but tenants and therefore were protected, under the Rent Restriction Act. The suit was filed on the Original Side of the High Court inasmuch as the valuation of the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction exceeded Rs. 25,000. The main and substantial issue that arose for determination, therefore, was whether the defendants were licensees as alleged by the plaintiffs, or tenants as alleged by the defendants. It may here be mentioned that at that time the amendment of 1973 introduced by Act No. 17 of 1973 giving the same protection as that of a tenant to a licensee not having been introduced, the licensees were not protected under the provisions of the Rent Act.
Sushila Kashinath Dhonde & Ors vs Harilal Govindji Bhogani & Ors on 17 October, 1969
52. Besides, it appears that the learned Judge has very much relied on the passage at p. 332 in the Supreme Court judgment of Sushila KasHnath v. Harilal Govindji. We have already dealt with this passage while dealing with the arguments advanced by Mr. Naik on behalf of the appellant. It is not, therefore, necessary to deal with this aspect at great length.