Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants preliminary decree for possession in landlord-tenant dispute.</h1> The court granted a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises and provide peaceful possession of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Decree of possession based on admissions u/r 12 Rule 6 CPC.2. Validity of notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.3. Defendants' preliminary objections and claims of renovation expenses.Summary:1. Decree of possession based on admissions u/r 12 Rule 6 CPC:The plaintiffs sought a decree of possession for the ground floor of A-27, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi, based on admissions made by the defendants in their written statement. The defendants admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and the rent amount, which was increased over time from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 1,35,000/-. The court noted that the defendants did not deny the relationship or the rent paid, and thus, the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of possession based on these admissions.2. Validity of notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act:The plaintiffs terminated the tenancy via a notice dated 14th December 2011. The defendants contended that the notice was defective but failed to explain how it was defective. The court held that the notice was valid and that the defendants were liable to vacate the premises as the tenancy was terminated by the notice.3. Defendants' preliminary objections and claims of renovation expenses:The defendants raised preliminary objections, claiming they spent Rs. 5,00,000/- on renovations and that there was an oral agreement for a 10-year lease extension. However, no counterclaim was filed, and no fresh lease deed was executed after the initial lease expired on 31st January 2002. The court found these objections irrelevant to the plaintiffs' entitlement to possession.Conclusion:The court passed a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to vacate the premises and hand over peaceful possession of the ground floor of A-27, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi. The application was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
