Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 203 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991

Dr Mrs. Vimla vs Sh. Praveen Jain on 11 April, 2007

14. Ld. counsel for the respondent has further argued that the petitioner is a lady of 80 years of age and as to why she requires premises at second floor is also beyond the understanding. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has replied that the petitioner is at liberty to chose one accommodation and just by chosing second floor of the portion it cannot be said that she has come within the category of malafide requirement. It is her premises which was let out to the father of the respondents and after the death of the original tenant, the respondents have succeeded tenancy and now the same is required by the petitioner for the purpose of residence by the petitioner. The Court has to see whether the petitioner requires the accommodation bonafide for the purpose of her residence as explained in the petition or whether the respondent has been able to prove that there are sufficient facts which if allowed to be proved by the respondent after granting her leave to defend, would disentitle the petitioner from seeking an order of eviction in the present matter. The only fact U/s 14D of DRC Act that petitioner requires the tenanted premises for her own residence in comparison to the petition U/s 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act where the petitioner has also to prove other facts i.e. the premises was let out for residential purpose or that the same is required for the purpose of residence of herself and her family members and she has no other alternative reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has further argued that provision of U/s 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act cannot be read while disposing off the petition U/s 14D of DRC Act as it has been held in S.Surjit Singh Kalra Vs. Union of India, 1991(1) 357 (Supra). The court is of the opinion that contention of Ld. counsel for the petitioner is well found as it has been held in various judgments that the requirement of the petitioner U/s 14D i.e. of classified landlord has to be seen within the ambit of Section 14D and it cannot be mix with the provision of Section U/s 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act where the requirement have to be proved by the landlord/owner in general.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next