SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1469

ASHOK BHAN, A.K.MATHUR
KAUSHALYA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
PREM CHAND – Respondent


ORDER

1. Harnam Singh, father-in-law of the present appellant, was inducted as a tenant by Ajay Kumar Gupta (Respondent 2 herein) in respect of Shops Nos. 3371-72, Chowk Singhara, Qutab Road, Delhi 110 006. Harnam Singh died leaving behind two sons, namely, Prem Chand (Respondent 1 herein) and Ramesh Dutt (husband of the appellant). Ramesh Dutt died and is now represented by Mrs Kaushalya Devi, the appellant herein.

2. Respondent 1 filed a suit bearing No. 165 of 1992 in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi.

3. The appellant, alleging that she had become the tenant in respect of the shops in question after the death of her father-in-law Harnam Singh, and was being dispossessed forcibly by her brother-in-law, Respondent 1, filed a suit bearing No. 58 of 1993 in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi.

4. Respondent 1 was served. He made a statement in the Court on 17 -3-1993 that he would not dispossess the appellant forcibly and without due process of law. The statement made by Prem Chand reads as under:

"I will not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and as per prayer clause Shops Nos. 3371-72, Chowk Singhara, Qutab Road, Delhi, forcibly and without due process of law."

5.




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top