Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.41 seconds)Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs Signature Not Verified Digitally ... on 5 September, 2022
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a
petition dated 21.06.2016 was moved by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner, L&E Department, North DMC for eviction of
Subhash Chand Jain, now represented by his Legal heirs from the
property in dispute and for recovery of damages. It is alleged that
the premises is owned by North DMC. There is shop on the
ground floor and flat on the first floor. The ground floor was
initially auctioned vide Corporation's Resolution No. 19 dated
04.12.1941. First floor was unauthorizedly occupied by Suresh
Chand Gupta, which was vacated on 15.03.2013. Ground floor
was initially allotted to the predecessor of the respondent on
monthly license fee in auction held on 16.12.1941 and allotted to
Sh. Pratap Singh, which was extended for 11 months and
thereafter, there was no formal extension of license. Sh. Pratap
Digitally
signed by
VIRENDER
PPA No. 4/2021 Siddharth Chand Jain Vs NDMC & ors. Page 2 of 20 VIRENDER
KUMAR
KUMAR
BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
Life Insurance Corporation Of India ... vs Vita Pvt. Ltd. on 25 April, 2016
15. The endeavour of Mr. Sanglikar to urge that since
the judgment of Suhas Pophale (supra) has been referred
to a larger bench by the Supreme Court in the case of Life
Insurance Corporation of India vs. Vita Private Limited
and Anr., the precedential value of the judgment in the
case of Suhas Pophale (supra) is diluted, does not merit
countenance. It is well recognized that the reference of a
judgment to a larger bench does not dilute the precedential
value of the referred judgment and it continues to be a
good law in the interregnum.
Suhas H Pophale vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.& Anr on 11 February, 2014
The judgment in Dr.
Suhas Pophale's case accepts that the Public Premises Act
will prevail over the Bombay Rent Act to the extent of
repugnancy i.e. for eviction of unauthorised tenants and for
collection of arrear of rent, but, not prior to 16.09.1958
when the Public Premises Act became applicable.
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Central Bank Of India vs Nrc Ltd on 5 March, 2014
Ld. Counsel submitted that under the
circumstances as it was the government property when it was
leased out, this fact is also admitted by the appellant himself, as
per law, DRC Act is not applicable to the premises owned by the
Central Government as held in the case of B.C.Shaw (supra)
and that it being the 'public premises' from the very beginning
and as in the case of Suhas H. Pophale (supra) that later on it
vested in the government, therefore, those judgments are not
applicable at all.
Sushil Kumar Metha vs Gobind Ram Bohra on 10 November, 1989
4. Mr. T.R. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel,
appeared for the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. He relied upon
the judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Gobind
Ram reported in 1990 (1) SCC 193 to submit that the
Estate Officer was coram non judice, since according to
him he did not have jurisdiction to pass the order of
eviction.