Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.37 seconds)Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
S. Kesar Singh vs S. Paramjeet Singh & Anr on 15 September, 2017
In the judgment of S. Kesar Singh vs. S. Paramjeet Singh & Anr. (RC.
REV 427/2017) decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held
in Para 19 as under :-
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987
In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969
Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028
discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner", it is held
that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioners have to have a
better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has
the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement
of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is
to avoid misuse of the provision.
Section 12 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
58.It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Indian Insurance Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999
Supreme Court 100, wherein it was held that :-
Jiwan Lal vs Gurdial Kaur And Ors. on 3 January, 1995
In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a
Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept
of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of
the DRC Act had noted as follows:
K D A vs Mahesh Prasad Dwivedi on 12 October, 2015
47. It is further not out of place to mention, that the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in the judgment titled as A. K. Nayyar Vs. Mahesh Prasad
(decided on 05.09.2008) has categorically held in para no. 6 as under :-