Delhi Court July 1977 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Savitri Devi Vs. Puranchand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR350
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) The petitioners are defendants in a suit pending before Shri M.S. Rohilla, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi. The present Rivision Petition is directed against an order passed on 12th February, 1977, whereby an application under Order 9, Rule 7& S. 151, Civil Procedure Code . was dismissed on the ground that there/was no cause to set aside the ex-pane order passed in the suit. (2) The facts of the case as revealed from the record are such that respondents have instituted a suit claiming a mandatory in junction to restore a bath and latrine which have been demolished by Delhi Municipal Corporation. The suit came before the court on 24.8.76, when the petitioners who are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were present, but the Delhi Municipal Corporation which was defendant No. 3. was not present. The suit was adjourned to 20.9.76 for filing the written statement which was filed and defendant No. 3. was ex-parte. The case, was adjourned for filing replication and documents to 1.11...
Krishna Devi Vs. Parmeshwari Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1977
Reported in: 1977RLR479
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is tenant's second appeal against the judgment of the courts below allowing the eviction application filed by the respondent- landlady. The respondent landlady, moved an application under clause (e) of proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). It was pleaded that the tenant was occupying two rooms, bath and kitchen of the house while she was occupying the garage attached to which there was no kitchen, bath or store. She was not keeping good health and was alone, also there was no no place where her only child, daughter who is married and her son-in-law along with her grand children could come and live with her, and that she bona fide required them to live with her. This was countered by the appellant tenant who pleaded that the need was not bona fide (2) Earlier an application for eviction was filed on 9.6.1964 claiming the possession of the suit property on the same ground, namely that the prem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›