Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.44 seconds)

Sh. Lalit Mohan vs Sh. Pramod Kumar on 9 March, 2021

Brief facts of the present petition as per the petitioner are that the tenanted premises were let out to the father of the respondent, Sh Mohinder Kumar Gupta by the previous owner. It is stated that the petitioner had purchased the suit property vide Registered Sale Deed dated 3.12.04. It is stated that the RC No. 46/21 Lalit Mohan Vs Pramod Kumar 1 /20 respondent has not been very regular with the payment of rent. It is stated that the tenanted premises are bonafidely required by the petitoner for opening a Yoga Centre for his mother. It is stated that father of the petitioner had passed away in 2019 and mother of the petitioner, aged about 76 years, now want to open a yoga centre for her livelihood for which she needs 400­500 sq yards approximately. That the total area of property no 6, Alipur Road is 900 sq yards, out of which 450 sq yards is a residential bungalow and remaining 450 sq yards is commercial area containing 4 shops, out of which 2 are in the possession of the petitioner and are lying closed for last several years. It is stated that the tenanted premises is the most suitable for his bonafide need being closest to the residence of his mother, who is residing at 8/8 Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi­110054. That due to her old age , mother of the petitioner cannot travel far. It is furthermore stated that mother of the petitioner does not have any similar alternate accommodation. That mother of the petitioner want to earn her livelihood along with the public services for a nobel cause. That the respondent is running separate business and the tenanted shop is lying locked. The petitioner has filed the site plan, photocopy of the sale deed dated 3.12.2004 and photographs of the tenanted premises.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanwal Sethi vs . Ranjana Aggarwal on 8 June, 2023

46. Again, in the case of Lalit Madhan vs Pramod Kalra on 10 January, 2014, the Hon'ble Delhi High court referred to the judgment of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Asha Kapoor (2007) 97 DRJ 548, Inder Vijay Singh Vs. NDMC (1995) Rajdhani Law Reporter 254, Sewa International Fashions Vs. Smt. Suman Kathpalia 82 (1999) DLT 104, Standard Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Gyan Chand Jain 97 (2002) DLT 290 and Annick Chaymotty @ Devayani Vs. Prem Mohini Mehra 95 (2002) DLT 312 and held that the consistent view of the Delhi High court needs to be followed which is that maintenance charges are to be considered as part of rent.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Rahul Chakarvarty vs Mrs. Nisha Khan on 28 August, 2014

37. Under the extant law the monthly rental of the flat would be Rs. 10,000/­ + Rs. 5,000/­ = Rs. 15,000/­. Under section 105, Transfer of Property Act leasing out a property in consideration of money to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions is called the rent. Here the leasing out the flat was in consideration of Rs. 10,000/­ + Rs. 5,000/­ = Rs. 15,000/­. The flat in question had been let out together with its attached fittings and fixtures. I am fortified in this view by a recent decision reported as Lalit Madhan Vs. Pramod Kalra, 207 (2014) DLT 92.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Brief Facts As Necessary For The ... vs Smt. Suman Kathpalia Air 2000 Delhi 69 on 17 March, 2018

11. The question therefore, to be determined by this court is whether rent would include payment of maintenance charges or not. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Court in Mohammad Ahmad (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, as it does not lay down that for purpose of calculating the rent, whether rent would include maintenance charges or not whereas, The Hon'ble High Court in Lalit Madhan Vs. Pramod Kalra 2014 (3) AD Delhi 323 has extensively dealt with the issue and while relying upon the judgment of Sewa International (supra) has come to the conclusion that rent includes all payment made by the tenant which is as not only per the original agreement but Suit no.  89 of 2015                                                        Page no. 11 of  17 all the other payments which are made for amenities provided by the landlord including maintenance charges.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Andreas Singh Wadhwa vs National Textile Corporation Ltd on 23 September, 2024

41 The view was reiterated by Hon'ble High Court in Lalit Madhan vs Pramod Kalra RFA No.350/2013 decided on 10 January, 2014, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Anup Kaur, decided on 28.04.2011, the decided cases of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Asha Kapoor (2007) 97 DRJ 548, Inder Vijay Singh Vs. NDMC (1995) Rajdhani Law Reporter 254, Standard Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Gyan Chand Jain 97 (2002) DLT 290 Digitally signed by VINEETA GOYAL VINEETA Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Surender Nath vs Roopinder Kumar on 16 September, 2014

13.The plaintiff has relied upon two precedents Lalit Madhan v. Pramod Kalra, 2014 III AD (Delhi) 323 and Sewa International Fashions v. Suman Kathpalia, AIR 2000 Delhi 69. He has argued that since the electricity charges were to be payable by the defendant to the landlord/plaintiff, hence, the same should be included in the expression of 'rent'. With utmost respect, the Court is of the view that the precedents relied upon by counsel for the plaintiff are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. It has been held in the above two cases that the terms 'rent' is comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed by the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation of its appurtenances but also of furnishing, electric institutions and other amenities agreed between the parties to be provided by and at the cost of the landlord.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1