REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

INDER MOHAN LAL Appellant

V/S

RAMESH KHANNA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BAHADUR SINGH V. MUNI SUBRAT DASS [REFERRED TO]
SITA MAHARANI VS. CHHEDI MAHTO [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SINGHARA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
L C GOLAK NATH N KRISHNA BHATTA GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS MAHARASHTRA PRAGAT SHETKARI SANGH RAJGOPAL RAMDAYAL DOOT P RAMAKRISHNA MALLY SRINIVAS RAMDAYAL DOOT VS. STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE OF MYSORE :STATE OF MYSORE :STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
SRIMATHI KAUSHALYA DEVI VS. K L BANSAL [REFERRED TO]
FI LR071 LAL JAIN VS. MAN MAL [REFERRED TO]
RAJ NARAIN PANDEY VS. SANT PRASAD TEWARI [RELIED ON]
NAGINDAS RAMDAS VS. DALPATRAM ICHHARAM ALIAS BRIJRAM [RELIED ON]
S B NORONAH VS. PREM KUMARI KHANNA [EXPLAINED AND APPLIED]
MANSARAM VS. S P PATHAK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NARSINGRAO GANGARAM PIMPLE [REFERRED TO]
V S RAHI VS. RAM CHAMBELI [RELIED ON]
J R VOHRA VS. INDIA EXPORT HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED [RELIED ON]
DHANWANTI VS. D D GUPTA [RELIED ON]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 19th of July, 1985. The appellant had made an application on or about 15th of July, 1976 before the Rent Controller to let out the premises for a period of two years under S. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Rent Act'). The Rent Controller after recording the statements of the appellant and the respondent made an order permitting creation of limited tenancy only for a period of two years for residential purposes to which the respondent had agreed upon. It may be material to refer to the fact that the appellant in his application under S. 21 of the Rent Act had stated as follows:

(2.) The respondent agreed to the aforesaid statement and stated as follows:

(3.) Upon this the Rent Controller passed the following order:

Click here to view full judgment.

INDER MOHAN LAL Vs. RAMESH KHANNA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address