Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.63 seconds)Ram Ratan Misra And Anr. vs Smt. Bittan Kaur on 15 April, 1980
4 It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant
that impugned order is not based on any evidence and wrong
appreciation of material available on record, therefore, same is liable
to be set aside. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has
argued that impugned order is in consonance with cogent and
convincing material and does not suffer from any infirmity.
RCA No.18/11 Vinay Kumar Gupta vs. Satya Rani Page 2 of 6
5 Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon
authorities reported as Ram Ratan Misra and another vs Smt. Bittan
Kaur AIR 1980 Allahabad 395 and Rajammal vs. Chinnathal AIR
1976 Madras 4 wherein it has been held that when attesting witness of
a document was not examined as he had been won over, there was no
sufficient ground for consideration of other evidence to prove the
execution and due execution can not be said to have been proved.
Rajammal vs Chinnathal Alias Mariyayi on 18 March, 1975
4 It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant
that impugned order is not based on any evidence and wrong
appreciation of material available on record, therefore, same is liable
to be set aside. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has
argued that impugned order is in consonance with cogent and
convincing material and does not suffer from any infirmity.
RCA No.18/11 Vinay Kumar Gupta vs. Satya Rani Page 2 of 6
5 Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon
authorities reported as Ram Ratan Misra and another vs Smt. Bittan
Kaur AIR 1980 Allahabad 395 and Rajammal vs. Chinnathal AIR
1976 Madras 4 wherein it has been held that when attesting witness of
a document was not examined as he had been won over, there was no
sufficient ground for consideration of other evidence to prove the
execution and due execution can not be said to have been proved.
Bimla Rani Gupta vs S.R. Sachdeva on 25 January, 2000
Reliance has also been placed on Smt. Bimla Rani Gupta vs. S.R.
Sachdeva 84(2000) DLT 171 wherein it has been held that where rent
agreement for a period of two years was neither duly stamped nor
registered, it can not be permitted to be exhibited.
6 I have perused the impugned order. Perusal of
impugned order shows that appellant herein had filed a petition for
deposit of rent @ Rs.2750/ per month for the period 1.5.2009 to
30.09.2009 as respondent/ landlady herein was not accepting the rent.
Respondent herein filed objections to the rent deposit petition
alleging that same was not maintainable as Ld. Court did not have
jurisdiction to entertain the same inasmuch as it was brother of the
petitioner, namely, Vineet Kumar Gupta who was a tenant in the
premises in question on a monthly rent of Rs.5550/ and rent was
RCA No.18/11 Vinay Kumar Gupta vs. Satya Rani Page 3 of 6
subsequently increased to Rs.8850/ and that landlady/ respondent
had instituted ejectment suit against him. It is also mentioned in the
impugned order that during the course of arguments, it was brought to
notice of Ld. Trial Court that appellant herein had filed a petition
under section 45 of the DRC Act against landlady/ respondent which
was dismissed and even appeal against that order had also been
dismissed holding that there was no relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties.
1