Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing K.C. Agrawal vs Hardip Singh on 9 December, 2004

Smt. Bimla Devi vs Sh. Rajesh Solomon on 5 January, 2013

10. Ld. counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner is alleging herself to be the co­owner of the property and she has no right to file a petition as she has not obtained any authority letter from the other co­owner. It is well settled law that the co­owner has every right to file the eviction petition. It is held by Hon'ble High court of Delhi in K. C. Agarwal Vs. Hardip Singh 2005 (1) E­66/12 Smt. Bimla Devi v. Rajesh Solomon Page 7 of 12 RCR that "A co­owner is owner of premises and deemed to be landlord for purposes of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. It is not for the tenant to challenge the inter se arrangement of owners as to how they should manage the property. So long as there is no dispute between the owners themselves, no advantage can be taken by the tenant."
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satish Kumar Bansal vs Raj Kumar Gogia on 28 January, 2013

It is held by Hon'ble High court of Delhi in K. C. Agarwal v. Hardip Singh 2005 (1) RCR that:­ "A co­owner is owner of premises and deemed to be landlord for purposes of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. It is not for the tenant to challenge the inter se arrangement of owners as to how they should manage the property. So long as there is no dispute between the owners themselves, no advantage can be taken by the tenant."
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satish Kumar Bansal vs Surender Kumar on 28 January, 2013

It is held by Hon'ble High court of Delhi in K. C. Agarwal v. Hardip Singh 2005 (1) RCR that :­ "A co­owner is owner of premises and deemed to be landlord for purposes of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. It is not for the tenant to challenge the inter se arrangement of owners as to how they should manage the property. So long as there is no dispute between the owners themselves, no advantage can be taken by the tenant."
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Jamuna Devi vs Mohd. Irfan on 18 December, 2013

Reference herein can be made to the judgment cited as K.C. Aggarwal Vs. Hardip Singh, 116 (2005) DLT 41 wherein it was observed that "the definition of landlord u/s 2 (e) of the DRC Act admits of little or no ambiguity and includes every person who is entitled to receive rent as also includes owner of the property. A co-owner is very much the owner of the whole unless premises has been partitioned and can maintain a petition even without impleading the other co-owners in the eviction petition who may be proper parties but not the necessary parties. While rejecting the contention that the petitioner-tenant never acknowledged the respondent-landlord as his landlord, it was observed that the so called acknowledgment is hardly of any consequence. A co-owner is owner of premises and deemed to be landlord for purposes of s. 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. It is not for the tenant to challenge the inter-se arrangement of owners as to how they should manage the property. So long as there is no dispute between the owners themselves, no advantage can be taken by the tenant".
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Ajay Singh Saini vs Sh. Dharamveer on 19 August, 2011

I am also supported by the judgment in case titled as K.C. Agarwal vs. Hardip Singh cited as 2005(I) RCR 251 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that Co­ owner whether a landlord­ A co­owner is owner of premises and deemed to be landlord for purposes of Section 14910 (e) of the Act­ It is not for the tenant to challenge the inter se arrangement of owners as to how they should manage the property­ so long as there is no dispute between the owners themselves, no advantage can be taken by the tenant­An owner/co­owner is a landlord within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act and a landlord/ owners within the meaning of Section 14(1) (e) of the Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Sewa Singh vs . Smt. Harcharan Kaur. on 14 September, 2011

14.The first ground taken by the respondent is that all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Surjit Singh are proper & necessary party to the present petition. It is held by Hon'ble High court of Delhi in K. C. Aggarwal Vs. Hardip Singh 2005 (1) RCR that:­ "A co­owner is owner of premises and deemed to be landlord for purposes of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. It is not for the tenant to challenge the inter se arrangement of owners as to how they should manage the property. So long as there is no dispute between the owners themselves, no advantage can be taken by the tenant."
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next