Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Shri G.C. Khanna And Ors. vs Electric Construction And Equipment ... on 14 March, 2007

Sh. Gokal Chand Khanna (Huf) vs M/S Minerva Cinema on 4 July, 2018

10. Sh.   Ghanshyam   is   a   summoned   witness   who   has   also   been examined   as   PW­4   and   has   brought   the   summoned   record   i.e.   case   file bearing eviction petition no. 08/11 titled as G.C. Khanna (HUF) Vs. Electric Construction   &   Equipment   Ltd.     He   has   seen   the   certified   copy   of   the judgment dated 25.02.2012 which is already exhibited as Ex. PW­1/7.  The same is being compared from the case file and found to be correct certified copy.   This   witness   did   not   return   for   his   cross­examination.   Hence   his evidence could not be completed.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.C. Nanda vs Karamjit Singh on 18 December, 2024

2024.12.18 12:20:26 +0530 and not rent. It is argued that there is no averment in the petition qua alternative accommodation and the petitioner has suppressed facts in the petition. It is argued that the subsequent facts disentitle the petitioner any relief as the daughter of the petitioner has married and moved out, the petitioner himself has expired, and the petitioner has constructed additional rooms in his property. It is argued that the case of the petitioner is at most of additional requirement and not bonafide requirement. He has relied upon Punjab Stainless Steel House vs. Sangeeta Kedia CM(M) No. 1354/2011 (DHC), Vinod Kumar vs. Vinay Kumar Verma RCT No. 27/17 (District Court, Delhi), G.C. Khann vs. Electric Construction and Equipment 139 (2007) DLT 128, Sri Pal Jain vs. Brij Kishore 22 (1982) DLT 137, Khem Chand vs. Arjun Jain RC Rev. No. 442/2012 (DHC), Beena Devi vs. Jagdamba Prasad Yadav RC ARC No. 90/17 (District Court, Delhi), Hakam Singh vs. Jagat Singh DLT 15 (1979) 117, Kanta vs. Goverdhan Dass Daga CIS No. 908/17 (District Court, Delhi), Santosh Devi Soni vs. Chand Kiran Civil Appeal No. 412/2000 (DHC), Rajbir Pal vs. Kanwar Pratap Singh RC Rev. No. 209/2010 (DHC) in support of his contentions.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Anil Kumar Tuli vs Sh. Yogesh Sharma on 21 July, 2012

8. After going through the testimonies of both the witnesses, it is clear that the petitioner is seeking recovery of possession of the tenanted premises for bonafide requirement of himself a well as his son. However, during the pendency of the petition, the ground floor property earlier let out to one tenant Sh. Harjinder Singh Bindra has been vacated and even at present ground floor is lying vacant. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ved Prakash and anothers Vs. Om prakash Jain, 2009 (10) AD (Delhi) 284 and G. C. Khanna Vs. Electric Construction and Equipment Co. Ltd., 2007 (139) DLT 128 that as long as an eviction petition is pending each and every subsequent event which is relevant for a proper adjudication of rival claims can always be brought to the notice of the Court. In deed, it is the duty of every Court to take it on record. In view of these judgments, it is clear that the court is under obligation to consider the subsequent events. In the present case also, at the time of filing this petition, the petitioner might have a shortage of accommodation, but during pendency of this petition, one tenant namely Sh. Harjinder Singh Bindra has vacated the premises in the year 2009 itself on ground floor and even at present ground floor is lying vacant. As per the testimony of PW2, three rooms are lying vacant on the first floor and on ground floor one shop has been vacated by the tenant during the pendency of this petition. After the availability of so much space with the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no alternative accommodation to satisfy his needs. The premises on ground floor is lying vacant and the same may be used to satisfy the needs of the petitioner. Even a shop got vacated during pendency of this petitioner may also be used to satisfy the needs of the petitioner with regard to commercial space. The son of the petitioner has already settled financially and running a restaurant on ground floor and petitioner is just assisting him and has no requirement of separate accommodation.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1