Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.89 seconds)
Documents citing B.K. Gupta vs Shri Sudarshan Chaudhary on 3 November, 1999

Vijay Kumar Khushwani vs Jagdish Chander on 12 February, 2025

Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 13 of 22 17.4 Further, it was held in case titled B.K. Gupta Vs. Sudarshan Chaudhary, 2000 (1), RCR 53, that- "In a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, the tenant cannot challenge the ownership of the landlord merely on the ground that the premises had been allotted to the landlord by the Government on hire-purchase basis."
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamla vs Hari on 18 January, 2014

In this regard reference an also be given of judgment of Delhi High Court in "B.K.Gupta Vs. Sudershan Chaudhary",2000(1) RCR 53 wherein it was held that even if premises was allotted to the landlord by the Govt. on hire purchase basis and same is let out to the tenant, tenant can not take a plea that landlord is not the owner of the tenanted premises within the meaning of Sec. 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. Moreover it is nowhere disputed by the respondent that petitioner has purchased the property in question and there are certain documents in the shape of DD no.52B and 74B dt. 15.12.12 of PS Shalimar Bagh as well as statement of the respondent wherein respondent has admitted the petitioner to be his landlady. In such circumstances I find that plea of the respondent is not sustainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinod Kumar vs Dalip Gupta Ors on 23 December, 2024

In B. K. Gupta Vs. Sh. Sudershan Chaudhary 82 (1999) DLT 1925, the petitioner U/Sec.14 (1) (e) was a licensee in a premises and created a tenancy in the same. The tenant therein pleaded that since the petitioner therein had no right to create tenancy, the petitioner could not be said to be the owner of the property withing the meaning of Section 14(1) (e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi rejected the claim of the tenant therein and held that for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the petitioner therein was the landlord/owner. Applying the same logic in the present case, the petitioner has derived his right from the original owner and since the said averment has gone urebutted, I see no reason to hold that he is not the owner/landlord of the suit premises for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) DRC.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1