Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.80 seconds)M/S Ruparel & Company (Delhi) vs S. Avtar Singh Puri (Decd.) Thr. Lrs & ... on 20 February, 2009
It has been further held in Ruparel and Company
(Delhi) Vs. S. Avtar Singh Puri 159 (2009) Delhi Law Times 109 that it is
settled law that court cannot dictate to a landlord as to how he should live
and to what use he should put each and every portion to and landlord is
entitled to assess the need and requirement of himself and his other family
members. Neither the court nor the tenant can dictate to him the mode and
manner in which he should live or to prescribe for him a residential
standard of their own.
Dipika Arora vs S.N. Sehgal And Ors. on 23 February, 1995
29. Further, if a person wants to shift to Delhi in his own property
from some other place, he is not required to take the property in Delhi on
Eviction Petition No. E49/09 Page 17 of 35
rent first and thereafter to file the eviction petition and similar analogy can
be drawn in the present case as well. It has been held in Dipika Arora Vs.
S.N. Sehgal & Ors. 1995 RLR 219 that "A landlady living outside Delhi
intending to sue Delhi tenant need not shift to Delhi and take a house on
rent and be a guest and then show her accommodation to be insufficient.
She need not give reasons for shifting to Delhi as decision may take a
decade and original reason disappear."
Jahuri Sah & Ors vs Dwarka Prasad Jhunjhunwala & Ors on 27 April, 1966
32. In the written statement, the respondent has denied for want of
knowledge that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from heart related
ailments. It is a settled law that denial for want of knowledge is no denial,
rather it is an admission. Reliance may be placed upon Jahuri Sah & Ors.
Vs. Dwarka Prasad Jhunjhunwala & Ors. AIR 1967 Supreme Court 109.
Even the respondent could not deny in his crossexamination that mother of
the petitioner visits Delhi after every 2/3 months for getting the treatment in
AIIMS. In the written submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent has
submitted that the petitioner has not proved the medical reports of his
mother Ex. PW1/4 as per Evidence Act as he has not examined any Doctor
who prepared the aforesaid medical reports. But, in my considered opinion,
there is no merit in this contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent as
the respondent has not disputed the fact of ailment of the mother of the
Eviction Petition No. E49/09 Page 19 of 35
petitioner either in the pleadings or in the evidence as already discussed
herein above.
Sarwan Dass Bange vs Ram Prakash on 29 January, 2010
In a case titled as
Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash 167 (2010) DLT 80 it was observed
by the Hon'ble HighCourt of Delhi that, "Petitioner/ landlord was residing
abroad to earn his livelihood and after retiring and especially when he is
now not shown to have any engagement there has a right to live in his house
in Delhi."
Saroj Khemka vs Indu Sharma And Anr. on 1 March, 1999
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Saroj
Khemka Vs. Indu Sharma & Anr. 79 (1999) DLT 120 that, "No Court can
compel a person to stay in a house of a relative or a hotel and because the
said person is staying abroad, he/ she has no right to stay in his/her own
premises. That will be totally negating the provisions of Section 14 (1) (e) of
Eviction Petition No. E49/09 Page 22 of 35
the Act. If a person is residing abroad, he/she owns a flat or a house in
Delhi, he/she wants to spend a few weeks or a few months then he/ she must
be allowed to stay in his/ her own house."
Shri S.P. Kapoor vs Sh. Kamal Mahavir Prasad Murarka And ... on 8 May, 2002
It has been further held in S.P.
Kapoor Vs. Kamal Mahavir Prasad Muraka & Ors. 97 (2002) DLT 997
that, "If a landlord/owner is permanently settled outside Delhi, but his visits
to Delhi are frequent, his need even for temporary stay in his own premises
has to be viewed as bona fide need. No landlord/ owner, in spite of having
his own property in Delhi, can be compelled to live here and there and face
inconvenience."
Section 7A in The Citizenship Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Dulichand Lakshminarayan vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Nagpur on 17 February, 1956
20. Even otherwise, if the plea of the respondent that M/s Ahuja
Finance Corporation which is a partnership firm of which he is a partner is
the tenant in the suit premises is considered, still it does not make any
difference. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dulichand
Lakshminarayan Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur, 154
Supreme Court Reports 1956 that, "The general concept of partnership
according to both systems of law, English as well as Indian, is that a firm is
Eviction Petition No. E49/09 Page 12 of 35
not an entity or "person" in law but is merely an association of individuals
and a firm name is only a collective name of those individuals who
constitute the firm. In other words a firm name is merely an expression, only
a compendious mode of designating the person who have agreed to carry on
business in partnership."