Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987
Further, support for this view has been taken from Shanti Sharma Vs.
Ved Prabha and other AIR 1987 SC 2028 in which Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that "ownership is not to be understood as absolute
ownership but only as a title better than a tenant". In the present case
the registered documents are available on the record and nothing else is
required. It is also the contention of the respondents that since petitioners
themselves have no admitted respondents no. 2 to 4 as tenants and has
admitted only respondent no. 1 as tenant hence there is no relationship of
E 16/09/08 Page9/18
landlord and tenant between the parties. I disagree with the contention of
the respondents since in para no. 3(b) of the petition the tenancy history
has been fully narrated by the petitioners and even it was clarified that
since the names of other LRs of Giani Devi were disclosed by respondent
no. 1 only on 11.8.08, hence the present petition is filed against all the
LRs. Tenancy of Late Sri Lal is not disputed and it is not disputed that all
the respondents are LRs of late Sri Lal hence after the death of Sri Lal and
Smt. Giani Devi w/o Sri Lal the tenancy rights would have been devolved
upon all the LRs of Sri Lal and since only one LR is using the suit shop
does, it cannot be said that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties. Even respondents themselves have filed the rent
receipts which shows the petitioners as landlords and now they cannot
take a contradictory stand. Accordingly in view of the above it is held that
petitioners are owners/landlord of the suit shop and there exist
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
➢ Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Insurance Company 1998(8) SCC 119
E 16/09/08 Page15/18
wherein it was held that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms for the
landlord as to how and when he can adjust himself without getting
possession of the tenanted premises. It was further held that when
the landlord asserts that he required his building for his own
occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption
that the requirement is not bonafide.
Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996
➢ (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 344 Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar Vs.
Traders & Agencies and Another wherein it was observed that " It is
for the landlord to decided how and in what manner he should live
and he is the best judge of his requirement. If the landlord desires to
beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property occupied
by him as a tenant or on any other basis is either insecure or
inconvenient it is not for the courts to dictate to him to continue to
occupy such premises."
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Section 109 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007
i. In the instant case though relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties was admitted in para no. 6 of the amended leave to
defend application, however ownership of the petitioners was disputed and
it was stated that property no. 4551-4552 did not devolve upon the
petitioners as owners. On the other hand it was the case of petitioners that
their mother Shingaro Devi purchase the said property from Razo Devi in
the year 1966 and their mother during her lifetime executed a Will dated
11.8.76 whereby suit property was devolved upon them. Petitioners in
support of their case have placed copy of lease deed in favour of Razo
Devi, sale deed dated 11.12.1966 and Will of Smt. Shingaro Devi dated
11.8.76 whereas except for the bald assertion nothing has been proved on
record by the respondent in support of their contentions. Even otherwise
ownership of predecessor-in-interest i.e Rajo Devi has not been
challenged by the respondents nor it is a case here that the Will of
Shingaro Devi or sale deed betwen has ever been in dispute or under
challenge before any court of law and it is also admitted that predecessor
of respondents was tenant in suit premises and rent agreement of
predecessor in interest of respondents and petitioner both is also on
E 16/09/08 Page8/18
record, hence now respondents are estopped u/s 109 of Indian Evidence
Act. It has been held in 157(2009)DLT 450 Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti
Devi in which Hon'ble High Court has held that " If landlord has been
receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of
someone else, the requirement of law that he is owner as well as
landlord is fulfilled." It has been further held that " he shall be
considered as owner howsoever imperfect his title over the
premises may be and that will not come in the way of eviction
petition u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act and even otherwise Section 116 of
Indian Evidence Act create estoppel against such a tenant and in
these circumstances the tenant should surrender the possession of
the premises otherwise the tenant if denies the title of the landlord
qua the premises to whom he is paying rent acts dishonestly".
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1