Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs vs Chaganlal Sundarji And Co on 13 October, 1999
The
tenant, in his application for leave to defend and also before this
court, has contended that the son is employed with M/s. Bird
Travels, is well settled and earning a sum of Rs.70,000/- and hence
he need not start a new business. However, this was denied by the
landlord and he stated that his son was employed with M/s. AMCO
Travels earning a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The tenant further contended
that in the past several years he never intended to start such a
business, besides the tenanted premises was too small and in by
lane in old Delhi, which has no potential for such business.
R.C. Rev. No.133/2014 Page 11 of 15
Learned ARC relied upon Raghunath G. Panhale v. M/S
Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., AIR 1999 SC 3864 wherein it was
observed that:
Mohan Lal vs Tirath Ram Chopra And Anr. on 14 May, 1982
The
Court has to see whether the learned ARC has committed any
jurisdictional error and has passed the order on the basis of material
available before it. Moreover, a Full Bench of this Court in Mohan
Lal v. Ram Chopra and Anr., AIR 1982 Delhi 405, exhaustively
dealt with Section 25-B of the Act.
Hari Shankar vs Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury on 5 December, 1961
On the scope of the proviso to
Sub-section (8) of this Section, after examining the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Hari Shanker and Ors. v. Rao Girdhari Lal
R.C. Rev. No.133/2014 Page 7 of 15
Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698 and Bell and Co. Ltd. v. Waman
Hemraj, AIR 1938 Bom 223, it was laid down as follows:
Bell And Co. Ltd. vs Waman Hemraj on 30 July, 1937
On the scope of the proviso to
Sub-section (8) of this Section, after examining the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Hari Shanker and Ors. v. Rao Girdhari Lal
R.C. Rev. No.133/2014 Page 7 of 15
Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698 and Bell and Co. Ltd. v. Waman
Hemraj, AIR 1938 Bom 223, it was laid down as follows:
Ram Narain Arora vs Asha Rani & Ors on 31 August, 1998
The
same court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani & Ors., (1999) 1
SCC 141 at para 12 has held as follows:
Dinesh Kumar vs Yusuf Ali on 26 May, 2010
d. Change in bona fide need in the eviction petition vis-a-vis the
legal notice- The tenant had strongly contested the changed
circumstances of the landlord in the eviction petition (i.e., for his
son to start a travel agency business) as compared to the legal
notice wherein the tenanted premises was required for residence of
the landlord. The impugned order has noted that the dependency of
the landlord‟s son for commercial space has not been disputed by
the tenant. It observes that the landlord, being a father can
definitely prioritize the requirement of his son over his requirement
of the tenanted premises for his residence. This Court is in
agreement with the finding of the learned ARC and is of the view
that the need of the landlord is to be examined on the date of the
institution of the eviction petition, an incident too remote
therefrom would not be a relevant consideration. Admittedly, there
was a gap of over 7 months between issuance of the legal notice
R.C. Rev. No.133/2014 Page 13 of 15
and filing the eviction petition. The circumstances and needs of the
landlord could well have undergone a change of the nature claimed
by him. There would be no reason to doubt it at the outset.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali, AIR 2010 SC
2679 and of this Court Anand Swaroop Vohra v. Bhim Sen
Bahri (C.R.P. 777/1999 decided on 01.06.2012) which relied on
Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das, (2004) 5 SCC 772. Moreover, a
landlord is not required to serve a legal notice on the tenant before
filing an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.
Anand Swaroop Vohra vs Bhim Sen Bahri & Ors on 1 June, 2012
d. Change in bona fide need in the eviction petition vis-a-vis the
legal notice- The tenant had strongly contested the changed
circumstances of the landlord in the eviction petition (i.e., for his
son to start a travel agency business) as compared to the legal
notice wherein the tenanted premises was required for residence of
the landlord. The impugned order has noted that the dependency of
the landlord‟s son for commercial space has not been disputed by
the tenant. It observes that the landlord, being a father can
definitely prioritize the requirement of his son over his requirement
of the tenanted premises for his residence. This Court is in
agreement with the finding of the learned ARC and is of the view
that the need of the landlord is to be examined on the date of the
institution of the eviction petition, an incident too remote
therefrom would not be a relevant consideration. Admittedly, there
was a gap of over 7 months between issuance of the legal notice
R.C. Rev. No.133/2014 Page 13 of 15
and filing the eviction petition. The circumstances and needs of the
landlord could well have undergone a change of the nature claimed
by him. There would be no reason to doubt it at the outset.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali, AIR 2010 SC
2679 and of this Court Anand Swaroop Vohra v. Bhim Sen
Bahri (C.R.P. 777/1999 decided on 01.06.2012) which relied on
Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das, (2004) 5 SCC 772. Moreover, a
landlord is not required to serve a legal notice on the tenant before
filing an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.
Shakuntala Bai & Ors vs Narayan Das & Ors on 5 May, 2004
d. Change in bona fide need in the eviction petition vis-a-vis the
legal notice- The tenant had strongly contested the changed
circumstances of the landlord in the eviction petition (i.e., for his
son to start a travel agency business) as compared to the legal
notice wherein the tenanted premises was required for residence of
the landlord. The impugned order has noted that the dependency of
the landlord‟s son for commercial space has not been disputed by
the tenant. It observes that the landlord, being a father can
definitely prioritize the requirement of his son over his requirement
of the tenanted premises for his residence. This Court is in
agreement with the finding of the learned ARC and is of the view
that the need of the landlord is to be examined on the date of the
institution of the eviction petition, an incident too remote
therefrom would not be a relevant consideration. Admittedly, there
was a gap of over 7 months between issuance of the legal notice
R.C. Rev. No.133/2014 Page 13 of 15
and filing the eviction petition. The circumstances and needs of the
landlord could well have undergone a change of the nature claimed
by him. There would be no reason to doubt it at the outset.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali, AIR 2010 SC
2679 and of this Court Anand Swaroop Vohra v. Bhim Sen
Bahri (C.R.P. 777/1999 decided on 01.06.2012) which relied on
Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das, (2004) 5 SCC 772. Moreover, a
landlord is not required to serve a legal notice on the tenant before
filing an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.
The Punjab State Co-Operative Supply & ... vs Amit Goel & Anr on 3 September, 2013
Reliance in this regard is placed on this Court‟s decision in The
Punjab State Co-Operative Supply & Marketing Federation
Limited v. Amit Goel, 2013 (2) RCR (Rent) 493 which relied on
Mehendra Trivedi v. Jai Prakash Sharma 157 (2009) DLT 690
Para 27 and T.B.Jain v. Savita Ravi, 2008 VI AD (DELHI) 103
Para 12. Therefore, the said issuance of legal notice dated
21.04.2011 is irrelevant and can be disregarded.
e. This Court is not persuaded by the other grounds taken by the
tenant in this revision petition which were also raised before the
R.C. Rev. No.133/2014 Page 14 of 15
learned ARC like (i) paying security deposit of Rs. 30,000, (ii)
amount spent towards repairs, (iii) non-joinder of necessary
parties, etc. and does not deem it necessary to deal with them.