appellant under section 45 of the DRC Act and
initiation of ejectment proceedings against brother of the appellant in
respect of same premises, therefore, impugned ... sufficient ground for consideration of other evidence to prove the
execution and due execution can not be said to have been proved.
Reliance has also
appellant under section 45 of the DRC Act and
initiation of ejectment proceedings against brother of the appellant in
respect of same premises, therefore, impugned ... sufficient ground for consideration of other evidence to prove the
execution and due execution can not be said to have been proved.
Reliance has also
appellant under section 45 of the DRC Act and
initiation of ejectment proceedings against brother of the appellant in
respect of same premises, therefore, impugned ... sufficient ground for consideration of other evidence to prove the
execution and due execution can not be said to have been proved.
Reliance has also
disputed that the defendant
has already filed the suit for ejectment against the plaintiff.
The issue of rent may be relevant in that suit ... that whether the
rent was paid @ Rs. 35,000/ p.m after execution of one
year of the said lease deed, cannot be framed also
that period of
limitation commences from the date of knowledge of the execution of the
documents in question and the knowledge of the plaintiff ... injunction and not the
possession since the plaintiff does not wish to eject the defendants from the suit
property but merely wants herself
security which he failed and
neglected to pay after execution of rent agreement and the defendant
had given one month rent of Rs.8600 ... defendant. It is further submitted that the defendant was liable to be
ejected from the suit property on non payment of regular rent
these documents was
bearing his signatures. Though, the papers used in execution of
those documents were the letter pad of M/s. Ashlin Travels ... suit premises. Suit of plaintiff for a decree of
possession and consequential ejectment of defendant is thus
allowed. At the same time, the defendant
against the tenants occupying the
portion of the suit property for their ejectment. Since, the plaintiffs mostly
remained out of Delhi due to nature ... said
proceedings, all the parties admitted the fact of execution of the Will by their
father. The suit property was also got mutated
NEELAM SINGH, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
SOUTH-II, SAKET, NEW DELHI
EXECUTION NO. 324/11
MRS. VEENA CHUGH ...PLAINTIFF/ DH
VERSUS
MR. BUDH PRAKASH SHARMA ...DEFENDANT ... Predecessor Court has disposed off the
suit for possession/ ejectment filed by the plaintiff as the matter has been
compromised between the plaintiff
The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
HIMACHAL PRADESH
India
The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj
