Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Section 20 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Lakshman Singh Kothari vs Smt. Rup Kanwar on 22 March, 1961
In this connection, he drew our attention to the
decision of this Court in Lakshman Singh Kothari v. Smt. Rup
Kanwar1 wherein this Court had held that in order that an
adoption may be valid under Hindu law there must be a formal
ceremony of giving and taking by the natural parent and the
adopted parent after exercising their volition to give and take
the boy in adoption and that such an evidence of a valid
adoption is not available in this case. The Appellate Tribunal and
the High Court have dealt with the evidence available in this
case in detail and came to the conclusion that Sri Bhagwan was
adopted by Hira Lal. It is not necessary for us to rely on the
evidence available or the findings as proof of a valid adoption
under Hindu law but the evidence and the findings are enough
to show that though Duli Chand and Sri Bhagwan are father and
1 (1962) 1 SCR 477: AIR 1961 SC 1378
13
Sharada
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2024 16:47:37 :::
907-CRA-240-2023.doc
natural son, it is not possible to invoke any presumption that
they constituted a Joint Hindu Family. It may also be mentioned
that in the written statement the tenant had not pleaded
specifically that he and Sri Bhagwan, constituted a Hindu Jooint
Family, that they are in joint possession,, that either the business
is joint family business or Sri Bhagwan was permitted to use the
premises for carrying on any business as licensee remaining in
joint possession. The evidence on adoption is thus to be treated
only relevant for the purpose of considering the question
whether the tenant has not retained any control over the
premises and that he has parted with the possession, and we do
think that the courts below erred in relying on the same for this
purpose.
Krishna Ramchandra Jadhav @ Yadav, ... vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 26 July, 2005
19. In fact, the Trial Court in its judgment has held that the
demand notice was served upon the defendant but considering the
non existence of the relationship of the landlord and tenant, the
landlord is not entitled to claim rent from the defendant. The
Appellate Court has considered the fact that the notice was duly
exhibited and the notice was sent at the last known address of the
defendant. The notice being returned with remark "Not Claimed".
The Appellate Court further considered that admittedly the
defendant has not deposited any rent in the Court. Therefore, the
ground of eviction of arrears in rent is duly proved. Bombay High
Court in the judgment of Krishna Ramchandra Jadav Vs. Smt.
Shankar Ajmal 2 held that notice packet returning with remark
"unclaimed", 'intimation' and 'not claimed', it should be presumed
that the notice is served.
Tirathdas Pokhardas Kalda vs Smt. Suribai Assumal Moolchandani And ... on 6 November, 2006
In another judgment of Bombay High
Court in Tirathdas Pokhardas Kalda vs. Suribai Assumal
Moolchandani and Ors3 it was held that notice packet returned
back with endorsement like "not claimed" or "unclaimed or nor
found', it is apparent that initial burden is upon person sending
notice to show that he did all that was necessary to get notice
served upon other side. Once he establishes this, the burden shifts
to other side to show that the endorsement are incorrect.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no need for me to
interfere with the findings recorded by the Appellate Court.
Section 1 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Venkatlal G. Pittie & Anr vs Bright Bros. (Pvt.) Ltd on 21 July, 1987
In the
judgment of Venktlal Pittie (supra), the permanent structure
alleged were construction of lofts, several rooms and construction
of pillars and stanchions into the flooring. The Trial Court and the
Appellate Court had granted eviction decree of the tenant on the
ground of permanent construction. However, High Court reversed
the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Supreme Court set
aside the Judgment and Order of the High Court and restored the
order of the Appellate Bench of Small Causes, there by granting
15
Sharada
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2024 16:47:37 :::
907-CRA-240-2023.doc
order for possession and mesne profits.