Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.79 seconds)Documents citing
Shri Anil Jain vs Shri Bhagwan Shankar Khanna on 30 July, 2014
Bosco Joseph vs Raj Kumar on 11 July, 2022
13. Similarly, this Court in Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, 2014
SCC OnLine Del 3855, has held as follows :
Mahesh vs Chander Prakash Rishi on 11 July, 2022
13. Similarly, this Court in Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, 2014
SCC OnLine Del 3855, has held as follows :
Kuldeep Singh Baweja vs Amarjeet Singh Khurana on 11 July, 2022
21. Similarly, this Court in Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, 2014
SCC OnLine Del 3855, has held as follows :
Mrs. Anita Garg vs )Sh. Kanshi Ram on 31 January, 2023
(iii) Anil Jain vs Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, 2014 SCC
OnLine Del 3855 para 11 (c);
Rajesh Jain vs Qazi Shamim Ahmed & Ors. on 6 May, 2015
25.From the pleadings and conclusion arrived at by the learned ARC,
it is evident that the eviction petitions were maintainable because
of the existence of landlord-tenant relationship and ownership
apropos the tenanted premises vesting with the respondents. The
bona fide requirement also was established. Besides the tenanted
premises, the respondents did not have any other commercial
property to satisfy their need. The tenants' contention that the
Wakf could construct new shops to meet the requirements of the
eviction petitioners/beneficiaries of the Wakf is untenable, since a
tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how he should manage
his affairs so as not to result in the eviction of the tenant10. For
the purposes of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, all that
10
Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, RCR 133/2014 decided on 30.7.2014.
_______________________________________________________________________
RC Rev. Nos.494 of 2013; 13 of 2014 & 49 of 2014 Page 27 of 28
is to be seen is that the eviction petitioner/landlord is the owner;
he needs the tenanted premises for himself or anyone dependent
on him; and he or such person has no other reasonably suitable
accommodation.
Subhash Chand Gera vs Qazi Shamim Ahmed & Ors on 6 May, 2015
25.From the pleadings and conclusion arrived at by the learned ARC,
it is evident that the eviction petitions were maintainable because
of the existence of landlord-tenant relationship and ownership
apropos the tenanted premises vesting with the respondents. The
bona fide requirement also was established. Besides the tenanted
premises, the respondents did not have any other commercial
property to satisfy their need. The tenants' contention that the
Wakf could construct new shops to meet the requirements of the
eviction petitioners/beneficiaries of the Wakf is untenable, since a
tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how he should manage
his affairs so as not to result in the eviction of the tenant10. For
the purposes of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, all that
10
Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, RCR 133/2014 decided on 30.7.2014.
_______________________________________________________________________
RC Rev. Nos.494 of 2013; 13 of 2014 & 49 of 2014 Page 27 of 28
is to be seen is that the eviction petitioner/landlord is the owner;
he needs the tenanted premises for himself or anyone dependent
on him; and he or such person has no other reasonably suitable
accommodation.
Abdul Rashid vs Nawab Ali on 11 July, 2022
12. Similarly, this Court in Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, 2014
SCC OnLine Del 3855, has held as follows :
Ajay Kohli Ors vs Rs Sharma on 17 November, 2023
In the case of Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, 2014
SCC On Line Del 3855, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as
follows :
"11 (c)....This Court is in agreement with the
reasoning and finding of the learned ARC. Moreover, it
is well settled that a landlord is the best judge of his
requirement. It is neither open for the Court or for the
tenant to dictate terms to the landlord. Furthermore,
the contention of the tenant that the son in the past
never intended to start such a business and that too
from a small bye lane situated in old Delhi which has
no potential for such business is without any merit. A
tenant cannot be permitted to dictate terms to the
landlord as to the suitability of the premises for
purposes under which the eviction is sought. Therefore, Digitally signed
the finding of the learned ARC does not warrant any DEEPAK by DEEPAK
VATS
Date:
Pooja vs Mohan Lal Katyal on 8 December, 2023
31. Similarly, this Court in Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, 2014 SCC OnLine
Del 3855, has held as follows :