Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Bhim Sen Batra vs M/S Shreyans Buildwell Pvt Ltd on 19 May, 2015

Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma vs Smt. Alka Gupta on 18 April, 2016

10. In Prithipal Singh (Sapra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the relevant provisions and the scheme of Delhi Rent Control Act and held that Section 25­B of the Act is the complete code by which the entire procedure to be adopted for eviction of a tenant on the ground of E­87/2015 Page 6/7 bonafide requirement filed by the landlord in respect of the premises shall be followed. It was further held that the Rent Controller does not have any power to condone the delay in grant of leave to contest the eviction petition on the ground of bonafide necessity U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. The similar proposition was laid down by Hon'ble High Court in the case of Bhim Sen Batra Vs. Shreyansh Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., 221 (2015) DLT 413.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhaskar Refractories And Stoneware ... vs Ishwar Industries Ltd. on 2 June, 2023

16. A conjoint reading of two Sections i.e. Section 14(1)(e) and Section 22 of the DRC Act does not show that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or a public institution cannot apply for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. Reference may be had to the judgment of this court in the case of Bhim Sen Batra v. Shreyans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.. That was a case in which a petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA RC.REV. 257/2022 Page 18 of 25 Signing Date:02.06.2023 17:29:39 DRC Act by the landlord stating that the landlord Company was incurring losses and is seeking to revamp its business and requires the place occupied by the tenant for building proper infrastructure and office to be used by its employees. An objection was raised that if a company or body corporate requires the premises for the use of its employees, Section 22 of the DRC Act would apply and not Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. This court rejected the contention.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - M P Arora - Full Document

Ravinder Kumar Verma vs Laxmi Narayan Mandir Nirman Sabha & Anr on 3 November, 2016

15. A conjoint reading of two Sections i.e. Section 14(1)(e) and Section 22 RC.REV. 511/2016 Page 9 of 12 of the DRC Act does not show that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or a public institution cannot apply for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. Reference may be had to the judgment of this court in the case of Bhim Sen Batra vs. Shreyans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., MANU/DE/2205/2015. That was a case in which a petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act by the landlord stating that the landlord Company was incurring losses and is seeking to revamp its business and requires the place occupied by the tenant for building proper infrastructure and office to be used by its employees. An objection was raised that if a company or body corporate requires the premises for the use of its employees, Section 22 of the DRC Act would apply and not Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act. This court rejected the contention.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - J Nath - Full Document

Harnarain Dass Charitable Trust vs Vinod Kumar on 23 August, 2024

Reference may be had to the judgment of this court in the case of Bhim Sen Batra v. Shreyans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.. That was a case in which a petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act by the RC ARC No. 18/2016 Harnarain Dass Charitable Trust VS Vinod Kumar Page 5 / 18 landlord stating that the landlord Company was incurring losses and is seeking to revamp its business and requires the place occupied by the tenant for building proper infrastructure and office to be used by its employees. An objection was raised that if a company or body corporate requires the premises for the use of its employees, Section 22 of the DRC Act would apply and not Section 14(1)
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harnarain Dass Charitable Trust vs Pawan Kumar on 23 August, 2024

Reference may be had to the judgment of this court in the case of Bhim Sen Batra v. Shreyans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.. That was a case in which a petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act by the RC ARC No. 21/2016 Harnarain Dass Charitable Trust VS Vinod Kumar Page 5 / 18 landlord stating that the landlord Company was incurring losses and is seeking to revamp its business and requires the place occupied by the tenant for building proper infrastructure and office to be used by its employees. An objection was raised that if a company or body corporate requires the premises for the use of its employees, Section 22 of the DRC Act would apply and not Section 14(1)
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harnarain Dass Charitable Trust vs Ms Bajarang Bartan Bhandar on 23 August, 2024

Reference may be had to the judgment of this court in the case of Bhim Sen Batra v. Shreyans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.. That was a case in which a petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act by the RC No. 19/2016 Harnarain Dass Charitable Trust VS M/s Bajrang Bartan Bhandar Page 5 / 18 landlord stating that the landlord Company was incurring losses and is seeking to revamp its business and requires the place occupied by the tenant for building proper infrastructure and office to be used by its employees. An objection was raised that if a company or body corporate requires the premises for the use of its employees, Section 22 of the DRC Act would apply and not Section 14(1)
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harnarain Dass Charitable Trust vs Parmod Anr on 23 August, 2024

Reference may be had to the judgment of this court in the case of Bhim Sen Batra v. Shreyans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.. That was a case in which a petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act by the RC ARC No. 60/2016 Harnarain Dass Charitable Trust VS Parmod and Pawan Page 5 / 17 landlord stating that the landlord Company was incurring losses and is seeking to revamp its business and requires the place occupied by the tenant for building proper infrastructure and office to be used by its employees. An objection was raised that if a company or body corporate requires the premises for the use of its employees, Section 22 of the DRC Act would apply and not Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. This court rejected the contention.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Idris vs Mohd. Ayyub Ansari on 21 December, 2016

2. The record of the Court  file shows that notice/summons qua this petition  was/were ordered to be issued qua the respondent as per the form specified in the third  schedule of the DRC Act, 1958  on 26.09.2016. The said notice/summons were served  upon the respondent,  through his adult daughter,  Mumtaz, on 07.11.2016.  Upon such  service, the respondent has filed the leave to defend application as per Section 25B(4) of  the DRC Act, 1958, on 24.11.2016. There is a two days delay in the filing of leave to  defend application by the respondent, which cannot be condoned by this Court, in view of  the law laid down in Prithipal Singh (Dead) through LRs v. Satpal Singh, 2010 (2) SCC 15  and Bhim Sen Batra v Shreyans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., 215 (2) RCR (Rent) 88.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1