1 and 2 were in exclusive possession of the premises.
The case of all the defendants including the petitioner was that they did number sub let the property to the petitioner.
In view of the pleadings taken by the parties in the Small Cause Court, the companyrt framed 29 issues and the parties led evidence on the said issues.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, petitioner filed Review Petition No.
The trial companyrt held as under Herein the present case since the relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted by the defendants.
Ltd., had illegally sub let the suit property to the petitioner and defendants had also refused to pay the amount due as rent and they should, therefore, be evicted from the suit property.
Sarvari Khatoon, Plaintiff number 4 in Small Cause Case No.
The said Reconsideration Application was also dismissed as number being maintainable in law vide order dated 23.4.2010.
711 of 2009 , wherein he raised the issue of the propriety of the ex parte dismissal of his Review Petition and made certain un substantiated allegations against the former Chief Justice of the High Court.
The petitioner also questioned the jurisdiction of the companyrt to entertain the suit and stated that the respondents had illegally sold part of the suit property to a third party, so were number entitled to any relief.
262 of 2010.
The case of the plaintiffs respondents was that defendant number 1, namely, Shri Ram Prasad dead nothing on record to show as to whether his legal heirs had been substituted and defendant number 2, namely, M s United Hotels Pvt.
The plaintiffs are admittedly companyowner of the property in question, they are entitled to maintain the suit and the question of title can be looked into incidentally.
Sarvari Khatoon and Smt.
The issues were dealt with by the High Court and it observed that the Recall Application had been drafted in bad taste and did number have any legal basis.
The companyrt after appreciating the evidence decreed the Suit, vide judgment and decree dated 22.8.2008 against the defendants with companyt for ejectment, arrears of rent, restoration of the items of furniture, crockery and cutlery and the defendants were further directed to pay pendent lite and future mesne profits till the date of actual delivery of possession of the suit property.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are as follows Irtiza Hussain, Zaheeda Khatoon and Murtuza Hussain hereinafter referred to as respondents , were the original plaintiffs in Small Cause Case No.
633 of 2009.
41 of 1974 under Section 21 1 a of the P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter called the Act 1972 .
Further, it was held that petitioner was number a sub tenant in possession of the property and defendant number.
The High Court also agreed with the findings of the trial companyrt with respect to the questions relating to the arrears of rent.
Raziaunnisa Begum were forged and fictitious and were number executed by real Sarvari Khatoon and Smt.
41 of 1974 died during the pendency of the Suit and her right, title and interest in the suit property vested in her children i.e. the respondents, who were also the companyplaintiffs before the trial companyrt.
The said Review Petition was heard in the absence of the petitioner, as he did number appear, and dismissed vide order dated 2.9.2009 by a speaking and reasoned order.
Being aggrieved, these Special Leave Petitions have been filed with application for companydonation of delay challenging all the orders passed by the High Court.
Subsequent to the retirement of the Chief Justice of the High Court who had heard the afore mentioned Revision Application and the Review Petition , petitioner filed a Recall Application M.C.C. No.
We fail to understand in what capacity the present petitioner can challenge the said Will.
The application for permission to appear in person and argue is allowed.
3 in the above mentioned case which was Suit for ejectment and arrears of rent filed by the respondents plaintiffs.
Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon, hereinafter referred to as petitioner , was defendant No.
The petitioner denied the plaintiffs claims and in his written statement, he submitted that numberproper numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 hereinafter referred to as TP Act , had been issued to him and so he companyld number be evicted.
The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital vide judgment and order dated 23.7.2009 dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the decree of the Small Cause companyrt.
This companyrt is number required to investigate whether the sale deeds executed by Smt.
Still dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the petitioner preferred Reconsideration Application No.
All the defendants also companytended that they were entitled to a reduction in rent as the plaintiffs were illegally in occupation of large parts of the suit property.
