Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.04 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Krishna Prakash & Anr. vs Dilip Harel Mitra Chenoy on 10 August, 2001

Suit No.52/99 vs Sh. Ram Shankar on 21 May, 2007

In ''Krishna Prakash v. Dilip Harel Mitra Chenoy'' reported in AIR 2002 Delhi 81 it was held: ''It appears to us that on ground of equity and legislative intention it could not have been contemplated that suits for the recovery of possession from the heirs of deceased statutory tenant should bear a Court fee at the full market value of the property. It should be appreciated that the landlord in the case of tenanted premises is deemed to be in possession of the premises though symbolically through his tenant. It is for this reason that when a suit is filed for recovery of possession against a statutory tenant Court fee is leviable under S. 7 (xi)(cc). This is the very nature of the present suit which has been filed to recover the premises from the heirs of the deceased statutory tenant. Simply because the statutory tenant has died and his heirs are in possession and had, therefore, to be impleaded to the suit, so that any defence which was open to the deceased tenant could be taken by him. It does not make it into a suit on the basis of title against rank trespassers. It still remains a suit for recovery of premises from a tenant after the determination of his tenancy. Statutory tenant had been inducted into the premises with the permission of the owner, the recovery of possession of that premises must continue to bear the same colour of the suit even when possession is sought to be recovered from the heirs of the deceased statutory tenant. To accede to the contention of Mr. Sabharwal would put a premium on the unauthorised occupation by the heirs because in many cases the high rate of Court-fee would act as deterrent and be prohibited for filing a suit if the ad valorem Court- fee has to be paid on the market value of the property. It appears to us that there is no justification for asking the plaintiff to pay Court-fee on the market value under 21 Sec.7(v)(e) of the Act and why he should not pay under Sec.7 (xi) (cc) of the Act when all that the plaintiff seeks to recover is the premises which had at one time been given on tenancy to the deceased statutory tenant. That is why we are of the opinion that in the present case the court- fee would be payable under S.7(xi) (cc) of the Act.'' The aforesaid clearly clinches the issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Saini Co-Operative Thrift & vs Sh.Naresh Kumar on 19 April, 2008

Thirdly, usually in all cases where the rent is below Rs.3500/-, the tenant is protected by provisions of the DRC Act. If it is proved that the property falls under the Slum Clearance Act then prior permission from the Slum Control Authority is must before proceeding under the DRC Act. However, where the DRC Act is not applicable then no permission from the Slum Clearance Authority is required. Under the DRC Act, the tenant is protected however, Annexure 23/33 //24// D shows that the tenancy of Sh.Mohan Lal was terminated. After the termination of tenancy of Sh.Mohan Lal he became only statutory tenant. Under the provisions of DRC Act, "statutory tenant" has interest only upto his life and after his death only his wife who is dependent on him can enjoy the property till her death. In the present case both Sh.Mohan Lal as well as his wife Smt.Bhagwati Devi have admitted to be died before filing of the present suit and since Sh.Mohan Lal was merely statutory tenant, after his death, his wife Smt.Bhagwati Devi has interest till her death and after the death of Smt.Bhagwati Devi the protection has been lost under DRC and Slum Clearance Act. Further legal heirs of Sh.Mohan Lal are excluded from the protection of DRC Act/Slum Clearance Act. (M.L.Goela vs. Kishan AIR 1978 Delhi 92; Gauri Shankar vs Union of India 1994 (6) SCC 349; Krishna Prakash vs Dilip Harel Mitra Chenoy AIR 2002 Delhi 81).
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bundu Khan (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors vs Sneh Mehta on 17 August, 2022

15. The learned Civil Judge addressed, first, the objection of the appellants regarding lack of jurisdiction with the civil Court, to entertain or decide the suit of the respondent. In this regard, the learned Civil Judge observed at the outset that the suit of the respondent was not filed on the basis of any rights flowing out of tenancy, and that the respondent had never sought to assert that the appellants were her tenants. The claim of the respondent was that Bundu Khan, the father of the appellants, was the respondent's tenant. As the tenancy of Bundu Khan stood terminated during his life time, the suit sought to contend that the appellants' right to continue in the suit premises was limited to a period of one year from the death of Bundu Khan. Further continuance by the appellants in the suit premises was, therefore, illegal and the appellants were, therefore, unauthorised occupants. Relying on the decision of this Court in Krishna Prakash v. Dilip Harel Mitra Chenoy 3, to the effect that a suit for recovery of possession from the legal heirs of a deceased 3 AIR 2002 Delhi 81 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RSA 13/2019 Page 8 of 34 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:17.08.2022 13:15:20 statutory tenant who continued in the suit property for a period in excess of one year from the death of the tenant was maintainable, as the legal heirs were continuing as unauthorised occupants in the suit property, the learned Civil Judge rejected the preliminary objection of the appellants to the maintainability of the suit.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Raj Mal vs Prem Narain And Ors. on 19 March, 2004

He placed reliance upon S. Kumar v. G.R. Kathpalia (8), Delhi, Shyamacharan v. Sheojee Bhai (9), and Smt. Krishna Prakash and Anr. v. Dilip Harel Mitra Chenoy (10). In view of these judgments while determining the mesne profits the Court has to take into consideration the market rental value prevailing at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the plaintiff referred the oral statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff and submitted that there was no reason not to rely upon the same. He also referred application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. filed in this Court and contended that the statement of the defendant Sh. Prem Narain was recorded on 5.2.1995 in some other connected case and the statement of one Sh. Amar Chand was recorded on 15.1.1998 and the same may be taken on record and the rate of properties in Baran district as determined by the Collector, Baran on 28.6.1996 may also be taken into consideration as according to this report the value of the disputed land comes to Rs. 650/- per sq ft. According to learned counsel for the defendants the statement of the defendant Prem Narain and the report of the Collector are the documents which came into existence prior to impugned judgment and thus there is no reason for not placing the same before the trial court and it was also submitted that these documents are not necessary at all to decide this appeal and the disputed land has been valued to the tune of Rs. 1 lac by the plaintiff himself. It was also submitted that prevailing market rental rate has not even been pleaded by the plaintiff and the decision of the trial court on this point does not call for any interference.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Capt.Praveen Davar (Retd.) & Another vs Harvansh Kumari & Ors. on 27 August, 2010

61. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Krishna Prakash and Anr. vs. Dilip Harel Mitra Chenoy 93 (2001) DLT 777 (DB), while holding that a civil suit seeking recovery of possession from the legal heirs of the deceased statutory tenant, who have acquired no right to continue in possession of the tenanted premises beyond the period of one year and have become tresspassers, was not barred by virtue of the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, made the following apposite observations in paragraphs 51 to 54 of its judgment:
Delhi High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 33 - R Khetrapal - Full Document

Prem Nath Aggarwal vs Munshi Ram Through Lrs on 21 July, 2010

20. A plain reading of Section 50 of the DRCA in fact makes it evident that existence of a landlord-tenant relationship is a must to attract the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in respect of the particular premises; jurisdiction of the Rent Controller being barred if it relates to the eviction of a tenant from the said premises; which again has to be determined from the averments made in the plaint and not on the defence as set up by the defendant. This has been held in AIR 2002 Delhi 81 Krishna Prakash and Another vs. Dilip Harel Mitra Chenoy. Plaintiff in this case has described the defendant as an unathorised occupant.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - I Kaur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next