Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.31 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Jiwan Lal vs Gurdial Kaur And Ors. on 3 January, 1995
Reliance in this regard can be placed on case law titled as Indermal
Gupta & Anr. Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. cited as 2013 (1) RCR 459
as well as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur (supra).
Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007
In Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi 157 (2009) DLT 450,
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under :
Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006
prevail. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case titled as Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain,
2006 (2)SCC 724, para 10 and 11, relevant extract of which are
quoted as under:-
Bilas Kunwar vs Desraj Ranjit Singh And Ors. on 13 July, 1915
21. The tenant thus cannot challenge the title of the owner
/landlord however defective it is. Reliance can be placed on case law
titled as Atyam Veerraju v.Pechetti Venkanna (1996) 1 SCR 831,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the
judgment of the Privy Counsel in Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit
Singh, wherein it was observed as follows:
Meenakshi vs Ramesh Khanna And Anr. on 16 May, 1995
"Mere denial of ownership of the landlord does not
mean that every case must be sent for trial involving
years. The Controller has to assess the strength of the
case of tenant regarding denial of ownership of the
petitioner. For this, guidelines have already been laid
down in various decisions. Mere denial of ownership is
no denial at all. Merely by saying that the petitioner is
not the owner, the tenant is trying to ensure that the
case drags on for years for trial. If leave is granted on
basis of such vague pleas, it will encourage the tenants
to deny ownership of petitioners in every case. The
tenants are well aware that once leave to contest is
granted, the cases go on for trial for years. Their
purpose is achieved. Keeping this in mind, the
Controllers should rather have a positive approach in
such matters so as to discourage such vague and
frivolous pleas which are most of the time false to the
knowledge of persons raising them."
Satish Kumar vs Subhash Chand Agarwal on 28 August, 2012
29. Reliance can be placed in this regard on decision of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Satish Kumar Vs. Subhash Chand
Aggarwal, 2012 SCC Online Del 4447 (SLP © No. 27341/2012)",
wherein it has been held as follows:-