Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
15 judgments · newest first · showing 1–15
The appellants, claiming to have purchased land from a Mahant, obtained an order of ejectment against the respondent tenant under Section 14A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The tenant contested the existence of a landlord‑tenant relationship, arguing that the Mahant had no …
The case concerned land originally leased to Louis Club for club purposes, on which a pavilion was constructed and later sub‑let to another club and partially transferred to a Municipal Committee. The landlord filed an ejectment petition alleging non‑payment of rent, unauthorised sub‑letting and …
Shyam Lal held an agricultural lease from 29 May 1996 to 28 May 2005, but the lease was not registered. After the lease expired he continued to occupy the land and filed a suit for injunction to restrain the landlord from ousting him. The landlord cross‑claimed a mandatory injunction for vacation, …
Shyam Lal, the appellant, claimed continuous possession of agricultural land in Faridabad for about 27 years under a lease that expired in May 2005, asserting that he became a statutory tenant protected by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The respondent, Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela …
The appellants, Tara Chand and others, claimed occupancy rights over a 78-kanal land in Jhupa Khurd, asserting they were tenants under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Their ancestors had been recorded as joint‑owners (hisedars) of the shamilat deh since before 1935‑36 and paid …
The mother of the appellant filed an application for recovery of rent and eviction of a tenant under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The tenant argued that he was entitled to occupancy rights and therefore not liable for rent, and that the application should be treated as a suit under …
The appellant, Ajmer Kaur, challenged the revenue authorities' re‑determination of her father Daya Singh's land holdings under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. The Collector had initially declared 3.12 hectares surplus in 1976, an order that became final after the appeal was dismissed in 1979. …
The Supreme Court examined a dispute over compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, where the land was recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahar. The appellants, Gaon Sabha, argued that the land vested in the Gaon Sabha under the Delhi Land Reforms Act and that the private respondents were …
Shri Neki, a tenant of demised agricultural land for over 50 years, paid one‑third of the crop produce as rent to the landlord's agent. In 1978 the rabi crop failed and he could not pay the share, but later paid the amount. The landlord's General Power of Attorney (GPA) filed an eviction application …
Dalip Kaur sold her land to Jeet Kanwar in 1967. Zail Singh obtained a decree of pre-emption and attempted to take possession of the property, which was then occupied by the appellant who claimed to be a tenant of the vendor since before 1957. The trial court granted a perpetual injunction in favor …
The appellants had occupied certain Shamlat Deh lands as tenants for about twenty years before 1975, after which their lease expired and no new lease was granted. The lands are vested in the Gram Panchayat. The Assistant Collector, invoking Section 7 of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 …
The case concerned land in Delhi that was originally evacuee property and was allotted in 1970 to Prem Nath, who later sold it to another party. Tenants of the land claimed that, upon allotment, the allottee became a Bhumidhar under the Delhi Land Reforms Act (DLRA) and that they thereby acquired …
The Supreme Court examined appeals by tenants (appellants) against land‑owners (respondents) concerning the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The land‑owners, heirs of an evacuee, had been allotted land and sought eviction of tenants, claiming they were "small land‑owners" whose holdings …
The appellants, landlords, obtained an ejectment decree against the respondent under Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 for non‑payment of rent, and the decree was executed without any appeal. The respondent then filed a civil suit claiming he was a mortgagee in possession, not a tenant, …
The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the acquisition of 196 bighas of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the owners, a mortgagee, a tenant and a sub‑tenant (Sewa Ram) each claimed compensation. The owners argued that, having redeemed the mortgage under Section 15 of the …
