9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld by the High Court as well as by the Courts below. 2. The appellant is the owner of Shop No. 4682, Plot No. 21, Daryaganj, Delhi. He leased out that shop to the 1st respondent on November 8, 1953. One of the terms of the lease was that the 1st respondent should not sub-let the shop. On the allegation that the 1st respondent has sub-let the shop to the second respondent, the appellant brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e defendant The parties shall be bound by the terms of the comrise. The terms of the compromise incorporated in the decree-sheet. Orders pronounced. Dated the 4th March, 1985. 3. Under the terms of the compromise, the 1st respondent was given four years' time from the date of the compromise decree for delivering possession of the suit premises. At the end of the said four years, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the protection of a tenant against eviction. The material portion of Section 13(1), the clause relevant for our present purpose reads: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or any contract, no decree or Order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any Court in favour of the landlord against any tenant (including a tenant whose tenancy i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pass a decree for recovery of possession of any premises depends upon its satisfaction that one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 18(i) have been proved. 6. From the facts mentioned earlier, it is seen that at no stage, the Court was called upon to apply its mind to the question whether the alleged subletting is true or not. Order made by it does not show that it was satisfied that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
