Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.47 seconds)
Babita vs Sh. Shubhash Chand Jain on 22 July, 2025 cites

Babita Kaur vs Subhash Chand Mishra on 3 September, 2020

It is further stated that the husband of the petitioner is also a co-owner in the property bearing no. 2981-2982, Siraj Ganj, Bahadur Garh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi which was the self acquired property of his mother namely Smt. Saroj Devi. It is stated that the same is a residential property and petitioner alongwith her family members is residing at its first floor. It is also stated that the said property has not been partitioned between the legal heirs of Smt. Saroj Devi. It is further stated that earlier also, an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act was filed by the RC ARC No. 13/2022 Babita Vs. Subhash Chand Page no. 4 of 42 petitioner against the respondent, however, the same was withdrawn with the liberty to file it afresh due to various clerical mistakes in the description of the property in the pleadings as well as site plan. Hence, it is prayed that eviction order may be passed against the respondent.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Sachdeva - Full Document

M/S. Rahabhar Production Pvt. Ltd vs Rajendra K. Tandon on 26 March, 1998

32) Similarly, with respect to the contention that the entire ground floor of property bearing no. 2981-2982, Siraj Ganj, Bahadur Garh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi is being used by the husband and son of the petitioner for running a printing press and printing of stickers, no material has been placed on record by the respondent. No photographs were put to the petitioner in her cross examination nor were tendered by the respondent in his evidence to even prima facie to show that use of commercial accommodation on the ground floor of the said property. As far as the contention with respect to the upper floors of the said properties is concerned, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendera Kumar Tandon 72 (1998) DLT 629 that the landlord is not disentitled from seeking recovery of the RC ARC No. 13/2022 Babita Vs. Subhash Chand Page no. 36 of 42 possession of a ground floor merely on the plea that he is also in possession of first floor and second floor so long as the court is satisfied with respect to the bonafide requirement of the landlord for the tenanted premises.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 73 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Rishal Singh vs Bohat Ram & Ors. on 21 July, 2014

Also, in the case of Rishal Singh Vs. Bohat Ram & Ors. 2014 (144) DRJ 633, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that it is settled law that when the tenant contests the accuracy of the site plan filed by the landlord, he is required to file a copy of the site plan, he believes to be correct so as to guide the Court in finding the discrepancies in the site plan filed by the landlord. It was observed that without such site plan being filed, the mere contentions raised to this effect will be considered meritless. Thus, the aforesaid contention is devoid of merits.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 39 - N Waziri - Full Document

Mohd Naseer vs Mohd Zaheer And Anr on 3 November, 2016

Here, I also find it pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court passed in the case of Mohd. Naseer Vs. Mohd. Zaheer and Anr. RC Rev. No. 267/2016 dated RC ARC No. 13/2022 Babita Vs. Subhash Chand Page no. 31 of 42 03.11.2016 wherein it was observed that mere raising of baseless contentions against the landlord cannot be a ground for being granted leave to defend to the petitioners. Further, it is a well settled proposition of law that it is not sufficient that any kind of the property should be available to the petitioner/landlord to rule out the benefit of 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. The property available with the petitioner/landlord should also be reasonably suitable property. In M M Quasim vs/ Manohar Lal Sharma, (1981) 3 SCC 36, the Apex Court has that the landlord does not have an unfettered right to choose the premises but merely showing that the landlord has some other vacant premises in his possession may not be sufficient to negative the landlord's claim if the vacant premises were not suitable for the purpose for which he required the premises . Therefore, the said contentions are of no assistance of the respondent.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 56 - J Nath - Full Document
1   2 3 Next