Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 27 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Suresh Kumar Sharma vs Ravi Shankar Sharma 13 Wpc/2382/2018 ... on 27 August, 2018
In this regard it is
necessary to mention the law laid down in the judgment titled as Rajender
Kumar Sharma vs. Smt. Leela Wati reported as 155 (2008) DLT 383,
wherein the the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as follows:
M.M. Quasim vs Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors on 7 April, 1981
(25) In the instant case also, it is clear that the rights of the petitioner are
of more than that of a tenant in the property in question and that she has
the right to exclude everyone holding a title lesser than his own. Reliance
in this regard is placed on judgment of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal AIR
1981 SC 1113.
Ravi Prakash Garg vs Jaswant Singh Jaiswal on 27 April, 2012
However, the status of the respondent as to when he was inducted in the
property has not been made clear by him in his entire pleadings or
evidence. It appears that the respondent has only made vague pleadings in
order to deny the title of the petitioner over the property in question. At
this stage, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in Ravi Prakash Garg vs. Jaswant Singh Jaiswal (27.04.2012
DELHC) : MANU/DE/2880/2012. The relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced as follows:
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
(31) Further, when the respondent has not pleaded the defence of adverse
possession in his Written Statement or his Evidence way of affidavit and
has not cross-examined the petitioner on this aspect, he cannot at a later
stage bring in this contention. Be that as it may, even if the defence that
the respondent is the owner of the tenanted premises by way of adverse
possession is considered, the same cannot succeed. The reason for the
same being that though, the respondent is claiming to be the owner of the
property in question at present, in his entire pleadings he has failed to state
as to how he came into the possession of the same and what was the nature
of the possession. He has also not stated as to who was the true owner of
the premises against whom he is claiming to have acquired title through
adverse possession. Here, it would be beneficial to referred to judgment of
Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779 , wherein it
was held that:
T. Anjanappa And Ors vs Somalingappa And Anr on 22 August, 2006
Reliance is further placed on the judgement of T. Anjanappa
v. Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570, wherein it was held that it is
incumbent upon the person claiming adverse possession to plead as to who
was the true owner. It was observed that "plea of adverse possession
inherently presupposes that the person claiming title by adverse
possession acknowledges the title of the true owner and claims acquisition
of title through adverse possession against such true owner."