Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.30 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
J.L. Mehta vs Hira Devi on 3 August, 1970
One discernible principle is that a member of the landlord's family who is actually residing with him forms part of his family 'unit' : see J. L. Mehta vs. Smt. Hira Devi, 1970 D. L. T. 484; Lala Ram vs. Smt. Kalawati, 1974 R. C. J. 405(33); Sain Dass Berry vs. Madan LalPuri, 1971 R. C. R. 887(34); and J. B. Jain vs. Smt. Sar Swati Devi Mahna, 1980(2) R.C. R. 40. For assessing the landlord's need, that 'unit' is not to be disrupted. By opposite implication, a member of the family who is already living separately is excluded. These are common sense solutions based on the reality of 'the situation, But, other realities may dictate a different conclusion : as; when an aged landlord living with his wife becomes a widower, and then needs the constant attention of a son or daughter hitherto living separately with .his or her own family- The need to have the son daughter residing with him, is then part of the need of the landlord 'himself, see Vas Dev Dhawanvs. Triloki Nath, ( 1967) 69 P. L. R. 260, 269 (Delhi Section) (35).
Mattulal vs Radhe Lal on 23 April, 1974
(117) A decision on a question of fact can be revised if it can be shown 'that there was an error of law in arriving at it or that it was based on no evidence at all or was arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse': see Mattulal vs. Radhe Lal, . That includes an error resulting from 'perversity of appreciation of evidence'; .
N.P.R.M.V.R.M. Alagappa Chettiar vs N.P.R.M.L.S.T. Lakshmanan Chettiar ... on 14 March, 1918
The only case which .involved clause (e) was P. N. Khanna vs. T. P. Balakani, 1972 R.C.R. 22 (23). But, I think, the real ratio of that case is that what was done by the tenant did . not amount to commercial activity, and, hence, the letting purpose had not been changed.
Lala Ram vs Kalawati on 21 May, 1974
Therefore, I doubt whether the observation of Falshaw, G. J., that dependence need not be 'entirely a matter of finance' is now valid having regard to the current interpretation of section 14(1)(e),
(75) In Lala Ram vs. Smt. Kalawati, 1974 R. C. J. 405, it has been stated, .that the second alternative applies when the landlord requires the premise for himself 'as well as' for a dependent member of his family who had not been living with him earlier'. This runs directly counter to what G. D. Khosla, C. J said, and all the cases which followed him. It converts the disjunctive 'or' in clause (e) into the cumulative 'and'. Although that is permissible . when the context so compels, there is no such need here. On 'the contrary, since 'himself includes the landlord's family, the words 'and any member of this family dependent on him' would be redundant. That shows that the 'or' was meant to be disjuntive.
Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs Chandrakant M. Patel & Ors on 4 February, 1974
The phrase 'according to law has been held to justify interference when 'there is miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law': see Phiroze Bamanji Besai vs. Chandrakant M. Patel and others' .
Firm Panjumal Daulatram vs Sakhi Gopal on 3 May, 1977
Panjumal Daulatram vs. Sakhi Gopal, 1977 (2) R.CJ. 94 (22). was a case under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the scheme of which is very different. It had two separate clauses enabling the landlord to recover possession of the premises on . account of his 'bona fide reqirement'. One clause dealt with residential accommodation, and the other with non-residential. There is. no equivalent of the latter in the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Vardesh Chander Chanana vs Prem Nath And Ors. on 19 February, 1981
(51) In these circumstances, I .should normally have remanded the case for a decision on the said questions of fact left undetermined. But, counsel for Waryam Singh requested me not to do so. He said that both parties had adduced all their evidence on those questions, and it was proper that I should 'decide them myself, as I could do on the analogy of section 103 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908. As an instance in which that course had been adopted, he cited Vardesh Chander Channa vs. Prem Nath & Ors. 1981 D.R.J. 132 (24). Counsel for Savitri Devi did not oppose this submission. Having considered all the pros a'nd cons, I, too, am satisfied that no purpose will be served by a remit, and that it will only cause unnecessary delay. Consequently, I proceed to decide first the question whether Waryam Singh has used the premises for commercial purposes, and, if so, since when.
Sat Pal vs Nand Kishore And Anr. on 3 September, 1982
(92) The Additional Rent Controller allows 'one room for guests'. No such requirement was pleaded by Savitri Devi in her petition or even in her evidence. She does not mention 'guests' anywhere. The only thing she does say is that her two Sobs, who are residing in the. United States of America, 'keep on coming to India' and stay with her whilst they are here. She Said the eldest son had been back five times, but did not indicate over what period, However, be that as it may, I have held in C. R. No. 523 of 1980 entitled Sat Pal vs. Nand Kishore and another, decided on 3rd September 1982(37), that it is only in the most exceptional, cases' that visits by relations and friends 'would have any tangible effect on the result of a proceeding for eviction'. I will not repeat the reasons which I gave, except to say that I still adhere to the view that it would 'be a total distortion of the law' to evict a tenant from his established home for ever merely to make relations and friends of the landlord 'more comfortable during their fleeting visits'. There is no circumstance in the preseat case which could possibly justify reserving a room continuously for the occasional visits of Savitri Devi's sons. The Additional Rent Controller has, in fact, given her more than even she dared to ask.