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

1992 Supreme(Del) 558

SANTOSH DUGGAL
O. BAHRI – Appellant
Versus
RIKHI BROS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Bharti Patni, D.R.Mahajan, R.K.MAKHIJA, Vijay Kishan

Santosh Duggal, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant O. Bahree, who is the owner of property bearing No. 1/4, E. P. Railway Co-opeative House Building Society, Greater Kailash Enclave I, New Delhi, let out the same to the respondent through his attorney, Shri I. C. Bahree, after obtaining permission of the Rent Controller, Delhi under section 21 of the Act, for a limited period of three years effective from 27. 10. 1978. On the expiry of the aforesaid period, he made an application through the aforesaid attorney. Subsequently on objections by the tenant, inter alia, that the attorney could not seek possession of the property, he got his name substituted.

( 2 ) THIS application styled as an execution application was moved on 5. 1. 1982, when the tenant besides filing reply, also look up objections to the effect that the permission of the Rent Contrloller was obtained by fraudulent mis-representation that premises were available for letting for three years, for the reason that the owner was expected to retire thereafter, and that, in fact, the said owner was hardly of the age of 50, and no where near the age of superannuation, and that the pernmission granted on that assumption stood vitiated. The



















































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