Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.50 seconds)
M/S. Deccan Wine House And Amrit Bar And ... vs Sri Radhakrishna And 2 Others on 6 April, 2023
cites
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sudhir Kumar & Ors vs Baldev Krishna Thapar & Ors on 28 October, 1969
In Sudhir Kumar (supra),
Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that, 'If we had been
merely left with the specific terms incorporated in the compromise
petition and the compromise decree without brining in by
reference the terms of the original lease as to matters not
PNR,J
CRP No.96 of 2023
15
specifically covered in the compromise petition and the
compromise decree, there would have been some difficulty in
spelling out the real intention of the parties'. As observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, whether the parties entered into a fresh
lease or the decree-holder merely granted an extension of time
for delivery of possession of the premises essentially depends on
the intention of the parties who entered into the compromise.
In the case on hand, from the terms of compromise, it is
apparent that the decree-holder merely granted extension of
time for delivery of possession and lessee agreed for those
terms. Therefore, lessee is not entitled to ask for renewal of
lease. The claim of petitioner is contrary to the terms of
compromise. Having entered into terms of compromise and
allowed the decree to be passed accordingly, the lessee cannot
turn round and refuse to vacate the premises on lame excuses.
Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi vs Midnapur Zemindari Company Ltd. on 6 July, 1914
(3) If the decree were not to attract any of the clauses of sub-section
(1) of Section 17, as was the position in the aforesaid Privy Council
[Ed.: The reference is to Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zamindari
Co. Ltd., 1919 SCC OnLine PC 41 : (1918-19) 46 IA 240] and this
Court's cases [Ed.: The reference is to Mangan Lal Deoshi v. Mohd.
Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950
(3) If the decree were not to attract any of the clauses of sub-section
(1) of Section 17, as was the position in the aforesaid Privy Council
[Ed.: The reference is to Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zamindari
Co. Ltd., 1919 SCC OnLine PC 41 : (1918-19) 46 IA 240] and this
Court's cases [Ed.: The reference is to Mangan Lal Deoshi v. Mohd.
Bishundeo Narain And Another vs Seogeni Rai And Jagernath on 4 May, 1951
Moinul Haque, 1950 SCC 760 : AIR 1951 SC 11; Bishundeo
Narain v. Seogeni Rai, 1951 SCC 447 : AIR 1951 SC 280 and Shankar
Sitaram Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke, AIR 1954 SC 352] ,
it is apparent that the decree would not require registration.
Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And Another vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And Others on 12 April, 1954
Moinul Haque, 1950 SCC 760 : AIR 1951 SC 11; Bishundeo
Narain v. Seogeni Rai, 1951 SCC 447 : AIR 1951 SC 280 and Shankar
Sitaram Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke, AIR 1954 SC 352] ,
it is apparent that the decree would not require registration.