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

1998 Supreme(Del) 450

ARUN KUMAR, M.S.A.SIDDIQUI
ASHOK CHAUDHRY – Appellant
Versus
INDERJIT SANDHU – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
GITA MITTAL, VINAY SABHARWAL

M. S. A. Siddiqui, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal, directed against the judgment and decree dated 15. 7. 1997 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, pertains to a contest between the respondent No. 1/plaintiff seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises after termination of the licence, on the one hand and the appellant defendant No. 2 on the other wanting to continue as a tenant without being evicted therefrom.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint, defendant No. 1 was allowed to occupy the barsati floor of the property bearing No. F-9, South Extension, 11, Ring Road, New Delhi (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the suit premises ) as a licensee as he was friend of her son, who is presently living abroad. Defendant No. 2 being a friend of the defendant No. 1, was a frequent visitor to her house. In the month of May, 1991, the defendant No. 2 came to reside with the defendant No. 1 for a week after obtaining oral permission from the plaintiff. In the meantime the defendant No. 1 vacated the suit premises but the defendant No. 2 avoided to vacate the same on one protext or the other. However, in August, 1991 the plaintiff terminated his licence a


































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