Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Mradul Construction Pvt. Ltd. on 23 December, 2014

Sh. Arun Kumar Nayyar vs Ms. Rajni Bahl on 28 April, 2018

In   the   case   titled   as  North   Delhi   Municipal  Corporation Vs. Mradul Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2014 SCC Online Del  7557, it has been held that :­  "there   is   no   legal   requirement   that   a   landlord   must   first   decide the business which he will carry on in the tenanted   premises and only thereafter he can seek to evict the tenant. It   has been held by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments   that what is the business which is to be carried out from the   tenanted premises for which eviction is sought can be decided   after   the   tenanted   premises   are   vacated.   In   fact,   Supreme   Court has also consistently held that no prior experience of   any nature whatsoever is required for starting of the business   which is proposed to be carried out by evicting the tenant.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Arun Kumar Nayyar vs Sh. Hazari Lal Garg on 28 April, 2018

In  the   case   titled  as  North  Delhi  Municipal Corporation Vs. Mradul Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2014 SCC  Online Del 7557, it has been held that :­  "there  is   no  legal  requirement  that  a  landlord  must  first   decide the business which he will carry on in the tenanted   premises and only thereafter he can seek to evict the tenant.   It   has   been   held   by   the   Supreme   Court   in   catena   of   judgments that what is the business which is to be carried   out from the tenanted premises for which eviction is sought   can be decided after the tenanted premises are vacated. In   fact, Supreme Court has also consistently held that no prior   experience of any nature whatsoever is required for starting   of   the   business   which   is   proposed   to   be   carried   out   by   evicting the tenant.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R/O 32 vs Mr. Devki Nandan Suyal @ Babloo on 30 April, 2016

It is denied that the petitioner had entire vacant space in the said property except two shops, i.e., one small shop of the respondent and another shop of one doctor. That the suit premises is situated on the main road which is commercial and suitable and potential for the petitioner to adjust his younger son's firm M/s Sonam Enterprises and to run Page 5 of 8 E. No. 175/15 6 a showroom and the same cannot be done from godown which has backside entry and not appreciable for running a showroom. It is submitted that the petitioner needs the tenanted premises for himself and for his younger son Mr. Chirag Jain to run a assembling business cum showroom as the suit premises in situated on the main road in a commercial area and the petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation for running a showroom. That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Mradul Construction Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (1) CLJ 363 Del, it has been laid down that "there is no legal requirement that the landlord must disclose in petition the nature of business he wants to start in tenanted premises and then seek eviction of the tenant. Further, it has been held that once the landlord company is carrying on its business from a premises which is not its own, then surely the landlord is entitled to carry on its business from a rented premises belonging to someone else and the landlord can require the suit / tenanted premises for its user as an office and also for the business activities of the landlord company".
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R/O 32 vs Dr. Gobind Singh Bhatia on 30 April, 2016

It is denied that the petitioner had entire vacant space in the said property except two shops, i.e., one small shop of the respondent and another shop of one Halwai. That the suit premises is situated on the main road which is commercial and suitable and potential for the petitioner to adjust his younger son's firm M/s Sonam Enterprises and to run a showroom and the same cannot be done from godown which has backside entry and not appreciable for running a showroom. It is submitted that the petitioner needs the tenanted premises for himself and for his younger son Mr. Chirag Jain to run a assembling business cum showroom as the suit premises in situated on the main road in a commercial area and the petitioner Page 5 of 8 E. No. 174/15 6 has no other reasonable suitable accommodation for running a showroom. That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Mradul Construction Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (1) CLJ 363 Del, it has been laid down that "there is no legal requirement that the landlord must disclose in petition the nature of business he wants to start in tenanted premises and then seek eviction of the tenant. Further, it has been held that once the landlord company is carrying on its business from a premises which is not its own, then surely the landlord is entitled to carry on its business from a rented premises belonging to someone else and the landlord can require the suit / tenanted premises for its user as an office and also for the business activities of the landlord company".
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1