Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
S.S. Puri vs S.P. Malhotra on 19 October, 2001
8. The respondents have, perforce, argued that even a presence of an
intention on the part of the owner landlord of parting with the possession of
tenancy premises after having it vacated from lawfully inducted tenant casts doubt
upon the bona fide requirement of the petitioners/landlord. In the instant case, the
presence of the 'collaboration agreement' and alleged concealment of the same by
the petitioners' in their petition under Section 14(i)(e) of the Act is projected as a
pointer towards absence of any bona fide requirement on their part. To add to this,
it is further argued that the plot wherein the premises in question is situated is
measuring 300 sq. yards and by no means it can be said to be insufficient for the
petitioners' family members in terms of appropriate and suitable accommodation.
In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents' has argued that a triable issue
has been definitely made out. To add strength in his argument, Ld. Counsel relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled 'S.S. Puri v.
S.P. Malhotra' reported in 2002 DLT 95 399. In particular para 3 has been relied
upon. The same is reproduced as under:
Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhattal (Retd.) vs Rakesh Kumar Jain on 9 April, 1996
The case of
col Surinder Pal vs. Rakesh Kumar. 1996 RLR 361 recommends
this approach."
1