Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)Mohd.Illyas vs Nooruddin And Ors. on 15 November, 2011
In the case of
Mohd. Illyas v. Nooruddin & Ors., 184 (2011) DLT 590, the landlord
concealed the fact that he had another property measuring around 300 sq
yards. This court held the fact of concealment to be a triable issue. The
judgment stated that:-
Kishan Chand vs Jagdish Pershad And Ors. on 16 October, 2001
12. Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Vs. Jagdish Pershad
and Others, 2003 (9) SCC 151 held that if the landlord is guilty of
concealment of residential accommodation owned by him, he cannot seek
assistance of the Court.
Ram Dass vs Ishwar Chander And Others on 9 May, 1988
4. At the same time, it has also been observed in various cases that if in
the process of landlord trying to prove his bonafide requirement the tenant is
able to raise any triable issue then the Court has to allow the leave to defend
application. It has been held in the case of Ram Dass vs. Ishwar Chander
& Ors, AIR 1988 SC 1422, that while exercising the power of revision, in
RCR No.269/2012 Page 3 of 11
appropriate cases the High Court can reappraise evidence if findings of the
trial court are contrary to law. Under these circumstances, it has been
observed in various cases that by allowing the leave to defend application an
opportunity should be given to the tenant to try and test the contention of the
landlord as the bonafide requirement is the state of mind and unless a person
claiming requirement is subject to cross-examination, requirement without
his evidence cannot be established.
Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal on 11 July, 2001
The judgment/order of the court/authority for eviction
of a tenant which does not show that the court/authority has
applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be
sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting
such judgment/order in appeal/second appeal/revision.
Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a
question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the
court has to bear in mind the statutory mandate incorporated in
Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied
the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its
proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide
requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for
such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the
entire judgment." (Emphasis Supplied).
Indermani vs Ajay Prakash Gupta on 26 November, 2012
In Indermani Vs. Ajay Prakash Gupta, 2013 (1) RCR (Rent) 521
among others one of the issue raised by the petitioner tenant was that the
respondent landlord had registered for a plot under the Rohini Residential
Scheme, 1981 and that a plot bearing No. 11748 has been allotted to him and
RCR No.269/2012 Page 6 of 11
that a residential house has already been built. This alleged fact was brought
up by the petitioner in the rejoinder to the reply filed against the leave to
defend application. The landlord in his eviction petition specifically denied
the existence of any other property in Delhi. It was observed that it is only
fair that the landlord has to come to the court with clean hands. He cannot
conceal relevant information that may go against his favour.
1