Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing S.K. Dey vs D.C. Gagerna on 19 July, 1984

Sh. Amit Gupta & Ors. vs Sh.Dwarka Nath @ Mast Ram Through His Lrs ... on 6 May, 2011

While in S.K.Dey v. D.C.Gagerna, 26 (1984) DLT 438, a Division Bench of this Court had held that dependency cannot be stretched to include the need of any other member of the family simply because he needs accommodation, when he is not dependent on the owner of the house. To stretch the interpretation of the meaning to be given to the word 'dependent' in such a manner would make the second part of the clause otiose because this would mean that if any relation of the owner, even if totally CRP 969 of 2001 Page 11 of 50 independent financially would be covered within the meaning dependent on the facile reasoning that as he is in need of accommodation he should be deemed to be dependent for that purpose on the landlord. The interpretation is against the plain meaning of the clause and against the very purpose, is and would run counter to the meaning of dependent accepted by this Court, and cannot be accepted.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 4 - A Kumar - Full Document

Tagore Education Society Regd. vs Kamla Tandon & Anr. on 10 July, 2009

16. As far as the issue of Additional Rent Controller‟s power to grant restricted leave to defend is concerned, I am of the view that a Division Bench‟s judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Chatar Sain Goel Vs. Puran Singh reported in AIR 1981 DELHI 239 had not been cited before the two learned Single Judges who had decided S.K. Dey and Bhauri Devi RCR 31/2009 Page 12 of 22 (Supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 78 - Manmohan - Full Document

Sh. Hemant Kumar Verma vs Sh. Madan Khurana on 24 July, 2012

Ltd. Vs. Owner & parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express (2006) 3 SCC 100, wherein it has been held that "As held in S.J. S. Business Enterprises Case, (2004) 7 SCC 166, suppression of material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of need of the deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it."
Delhi District Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Vinod Kumar vs Smt. Satinder Kaur on 1 October, 2013

S.K. Dey Vs. D.C. Gagerna (Delhi) 1984(2) All India Rent Control General page 593 to submit that the condition precedent to a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act 1958 as amended is that the person for whose occupation the landlord / owner requires the premises bonafide is a member of his family (i) is dependent on him and it is only when he satisfies both these postulates that he would be entitled to an order of eviction against the tenant and Prem Sheel Malhan Vs. R.P. Chawla (1974) Rajdhani Law Reporter 522 to reiterate that eviction could be sought by a owner under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act only if the persons for whose occupation the tenanted premises were required were in any way dependent on the owner and evidence can be looked into the aspect only if it has been expressly alleged in the pleadings;
Delhi District Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Net Ram vs Beant Singh on 23 May, 1985

(11) There is umpteen authority for the proposition that even though the word "dependent" has not been defined in the Act it will have to be construed on a commonsense view of the matter having regard to the social religious structure of Hindu society and its interpretation must have relation to existing facts and circumstances, proved on record of the case. It is equally well settled that the phrase "or for any member of his family dependent on him" occurring in clause (e) of proviso to section 14(1) not require the additional accommodation for himself but he wants it for members of bids family dependent on him. In that case he has to satisfy two conditions precedent before he can take recourse to the second part of the above clause, namely that the person for whose occupation he requires the premises bonafide (i) is a member of his family, and (ii) is dependent on him. It is only when he satisfies both these postulates that he would be entitled to an order of eviction against the tenant; see S.K.Dey v. D.C. Gagerna, , wherein I have dealt with this aspect of the matter at considerable length on a review of some well-known decisions of this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next