Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
Smt. Leelawati vs Sh.Shahjahan Ali on 14 February, 2011 cites

Amarjit Singh vs Smt. Khatoon Quamarain on 18 November, 1986

11. Counsel for respondent argued that petitioner does not require suit premises for bonafide requirement as during pendency of petition, she has let out one room set on the second floor of her property no.45/4788, Raigerpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to one Sh.Gautam Khamrui at a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/­ and executed a rent agreement dated 14.07.2010 with effect from 10.07.2010. It is further argued that after passing the order dated 18.08.2010, petitioner has further given two rooms on third floor of suit property to Sh.Mithun Podan on 14.10.2010. Therefore, it is submitted that petitioner has no bonafide requirement of any premises either for herself or for alleged dependents. He argued that this fact was not in the knowledge of respondents during pendency of petition and they only came to know about same after disposal of petition. M­51/2010 6/12 7 Counsel for respondents has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Amarjit Singh versus Khatoon Quamarain bearing civil appeal no.3378 decided on 18.11.1986 cited as 31 (1987) Delhi Law Times 72.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 81 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal on 11 July, 2001

13. It may be seen that judgments i.e. 31 (1987) Delhi Law Times 72; 106(2003) DLT 496; 143(2007) DLT 1; 68(1997) DLT 300 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal decided on 11.07.2001, relied upon by counsel for respondents pertains to the provisions under section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act, which is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case as Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as S.N. Kapoor v. Basanti Lal Khatri cited as AIR 2002 Supreme Court 171 has observed that:­ "In adjudging the claim under section 14­D what is required to be substantiated is that the landlady is a widow and that she wants the premises for her own residence and that the claim by her is bona fide and not a feigned one. So far as a claim under section 14(1) (e) is concerned, the very requirement has to be shown not only to be bona fide but the move of the landlord/landlady to seek the eviction of the tenant must be genuine."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 484 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. ... vs Basant Lal Khatri & Ors. Respondents on 5 November, 2001

13. It may be seen that judgments i.e. 31 (1987) Delhi Law Times 72; 106(2003) DLT 496; 143(2007) DLT 1; 68(1997) DLT 300 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal decided on 11.07.2001, relied upon by counsel for respondents pertains to the provisions under section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act, which is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case as Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as S.N. Kapoor v. Basanti Lal Khatri cited as AIR 2002 Supreme Court 171 has observed that:­ "In adjudging the claim under section 14­D what is required to be substantiated is that the landlady is a widow and that she wants the premises for her own residence and that the claim by her is bona fide and not a feigned one. So far as a claim under section 14(1) (e) is concerned, the very requirement has to be shown not only to be bona fide but the move of the landlord/landlady to seek the eviction of the tenant must be genuine."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 60 - Full Document

S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991

18. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.S. Kalra's case, it has been held in "Fibre Bond (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chand Rani, CR No.850 of 1992 decided on 8.2.1993 that the tendant cannot insist on a close scrutiny of the requirements of the landlady by applying the provisions of cl.(e) of section 14(1). All that he can seek is that the landlady should have shown by setting out such facts in the eviction petition as would satisfy the Controller that she needed the premises bonafide for her residence. In the case in hand, the respondents have failed to establish that mere giving on rent one room set on second floor of the suit property during the pendency of the suit and further giving two rooms on rent on third floor of suit premises to another tenant would entitled them for review of the order dated 18.08.2010 and moreover, how it could be construed that first floor of suit property is not required by the widow landlady/petitioner for her own residence which has already been M­51/2010 11/12 12 discussed in the order dated 18.08.2010. Mere apprehension of the respondents that the premises would be letted out to some other tenant will not reduce the requirement of the premises of the petitioner for her own residence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 135 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Fibre Bond (Sales) vs Chand Rani on 7 May, 1993

18. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.S. Kalra's case, it has been held in "Fibre Bond (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chand Rani, CR No.850 of 1992 decided on 8.2.1993 that the tendant cannot insist on a close scrutiny of the requirements of the landlady by applying the provisions of cl.(e) of section 14(1). All that he can seek is that the landlady should have shown by setting out such facts in the eviction petition as would satisfy the Controller that she needed the premises bonafide for her residence. In the case in hand, the respondents have failed to establish that mere giving on rent one room set on second floor of the suit property during the pendency of the suit and further giving two rooms on rent on third floor of suit premises to another tenant would entitled them for review of the order dated 18.08.2010 and moreover, how it could be construed that first floor of suit property is not required by the widow landlady/petitioner for her own residence which has already been M­51/2010 11/12 12 discussed in the order dated 18.08.2010. Mere apprehension of the respondents that the premises would be letted out to some other tenant will not reduce the requirement of the premises of the petitioner for her own residence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 15 - R M Sahai - Full Document
1