Sh. Ashok Kumar Maggu vs Sh. Ganshyam Dass on 24 February, 2022
(v) Daya Ram Vs. Vidya" 2012 2 RCR 269.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)Documents citing
Daya Ram Prajapati vs Smt. Vidya Devi on 20 September, 2012
Sh. Sanjay vs Sh. Kundan Lal on 23 April, 2015
22653 to
54 of 2011 dated 06.3.12, Daya Ram Prajapati vs. Smt.
Vidya Devi in R.C. Rev. No. 458 of 2012 and C.M. Nos.
M/S. S.S. Investments vs (1) Sh. Yogender Sen Manchanda on 29 November, 2014
8. Petitioner in its petition has mentioned that vide receipt No. 394992
dated 28.09.2012, it had deposited property tax of premises in question to
the NDMC, after it was allotted property ID. The said fact is not disputed
by the respondents. The said fact prima facie shows that petitioner has the
right and title over the premises in question. "Ownership" contemplated in
the provision U/s. 14(1)(e) is viz. a viz. "tenant" which means that
ownership is something more than a tenant. Concept of absolute ownership
is not required to be determined in rent cases. Reliance in this regard is
made on Daya Ram Prajapati Vs. Smt. Vidhya Devi. Keeping the said
settled proposition of law, petitioner in this case, on the strength of
registered documents has shown that he is the owner/landlord of premises
in question. Respondents on the other hand if admitted that they are in
possession of the premises in question. In the capacity of being tenants.
Title of the petitioner therefore is better than that of respondents. There is
no proof, which is filed by respondents, which can show that their title in
the premises in question is better/more than that of petitioner. Another
related aspect, with the aforesaid proposition is not respondents have not
mentioned in their application for leave to defend that the actual
owner/landlord of premises in question have filed some case against the
claim of petitioner or that such like is pending, as on date.
(1) Sh. Ram Pratap vs Smt. Chanderwati on 3 November, 2015
26. Similar observations have been consistently held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in case titled "Yadvendra Arya & Anr. vs. Mukesh
Kumar Gupta" AIR 2008 Supreme Court 773 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in "Smt. Saleem Bano & Anr. vs. Mohd. Rafi" 2009 (3) RCR 94 and "Daya
Ram Prajapati vs. Smt. Vidya Devi" 2012 (2) RCR 269 to the effect :
(1) Sh. Ram Pratap vs Sh. Sushil on 3 November, 2015
26. Similar observations have been consistently held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in case titled "Yadvendra Arya & Anr. vs. Mukesh
Kumar Gupta" AIR 2008 Supreme Court 773 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in "Smt. Saleem Bano & Anr. vs. Mohd. Rafi" 2009 (3) RCR 94 and "Daya
Ram Prajapati vs. Smt. Vidya Devi" 2012 (2) RCR 269 to the effect :
Through Its Trustee Ms. Sakshi ... vs Smt. Rani on 26 August, 2015
In Daya Ram
Page 13 of 16 E. No. 109/14
14
Prajapati Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi RC Revision No. 458/2012, it has been
held that
"concept of absolute ownership is not
required to be determined in rent cases and
'ownership' contemplated in his provision is vizaviz
'tenant' which means that the ownership is something
more than the tenant".
Dayaram Gupta vs Smt. Vidya Devi And Another on 29 August, 2023
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.29, Sultanpur to decide the case of petitioner bearing Regular Suit No.1366 of 2014 (Daya Ram Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi and another) expeditiously and within a reasonable period of time as directed by this Hon'ble Court."
1