Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.81 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Section 32 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
M.P. Wakf Board vs Subhan Shah (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 31 October, 2006
Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the dicta of
the Supreme Court in M.P. Wakf Board v. Subhan Shah (Dead)
By LRs & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 696 is misplaced since the case
did not deal with the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Section 50 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007
17.Ownership: It is well settled that for the purpose of Section
14(1)(e) of the Act, the landlord is not required to prove absolute
ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. He is
5
Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi, (2009) 157 DLT 450; See also Mohan Lal v. Ram Chopra, AIR
1982 Del 405 and Chaman Prakash Puri v. Ishwar Dass Rajput, (1995) Supp (4) SCC 445
_______________________________________________________________________
RC Rev. Nos.494 of 2013; 13 of 2014 & 49 of 2014 Page 18 of 28
only required to show that he is more than a tenant.6 Admittedly,
the petitioners had not disputed landlord-tenant relationship; they
had also not disputed the license deeds and rent deed as aforesaid;
furthermore, in a suit instituted by the petitioners, they had
acknowledged respondent No.1 to be the owner of the tenanted
premises. It is also not in dispute that the respondents are the
children of Qazi Sajjad Hussain and Smt. Rabia Begum.
Mohan Lal vs Tirath Ram Chopra And Anr. on 14 May, 1982
17.Ownership: It is well settled that for the purpose of Section
14(1)(e) of the Act, the landlord is not required to prove absolute
ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. He is
5
Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi, (2009) 157 DLT 450; See also Mohan Lal v. Ram Chopra, AIR
1982 Del 405 and Chaman Prakash Puri v. Ishwar Dass Rajput, (1995) Supp (4) SCC 445
_______________________________________________________________________
RC Rev. Nos.494 of 2013; 13 of 2014 & 49 of 2014 Page 18 of 28
only required to show that he is more than a tenant.6 Admittedly,
the petitioners had not disputed landlord-tenant relationship; they
had also not disputed the license deeds and rent deed as aforesaid;
furthermore, in a suit instituted by the petitioners, they had
acknowledged respondent No.1 to be the owner of the tenanted
premises. It is also not in dispute that the respondents are the
children of Qazi Sajjad Hussain and Smt. Rabia Begum.
Anis Fatma Begum vs Board Of Wakf on 2 May, 2003
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon a Division
Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Anis Fatma
Begum v. Board of Wakf7, wherein Justice Altamas Kabir, as he
then was, held as under:
Nisar Ahmed vs Agyapal Singh on 11 February, 2015
19.In Nisar Ahmed v. Agyapal Singh,8 relying upon other judgments
of various High Courts,9 this Court held that a Mutawalli could
7
AIR 2004 Cal 91
8
RC. REV. 377/2011, decided on 11th February, 2015
_______________________________________________________________________
RC Rev. Nos.494 of 2013; 13 of 2014 & 49 of 2014 Page 20 of 28
sue for eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
Relevant portions of the said judgment are reproduced as under: