Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.46 seconds)
M/S S. Chand & Co vs Sh. Jay Kant Mishra on 19 November, 2011 cites

Smt. Kamla Rani And Ors. vs Texmaco Ltd. on 29 January, 2007

17. The present petitions were filed u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act and Section 22 of DRC Act. Under the provisions of both the abovesaid sections the petitioners have to prove that the respondent was working with the petitioner no. 1 company and let out the suit premises to the respondent as its employee and the respondent is no longer in employment with the petitioner no. 1. It is not in dispute that the respondent has joined the petitioner no. 1 company in the year 1992. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was in E­12/09 & E­68/09 Page 21 of 32 //22// the employment of the petitioner no. 1 in the year 1998. The sale deed Ex. PW­1/4 also proves that petitioner no. 2 purchased the suit property. Petitioner no. 1 is merely claiming its landlordship qua the suit premises as allotted it to the respondent being its employee to live alongwith his family. It is well settled that landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership u/s 22 and u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act. It is held in Kamla Rani & Ors. Vs. Texmaco Ltd. (supra) that u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act ownership is not relevant for the reason a person may be landlord without being an owner.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 34 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Smt. Sukumari Dass & Ors vs Musst. Saleha Khatoon & Ors on 20 May, 2010

21. In view of the above discussion, it is proved that neither the respondent nor his father was in possession of the suit premises since 1965. The respondent has also failed to establish that he is in possession of the suit premises in his own capacity. On the other hand the petitioners have proved that the respondent re­joined the petitioner no. 1 company on 01.05.1998 and the petitioner no.. 1 allowed the respondent to live in one room on the first floor in property no. 19, Radha Madhav Mandir, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, E­12/09 & E­68/09 Page 30 of 32 //31// New Delh being its employee. The petitioner no. 1 had given only one room to the respondent to live, however, the respondent had encroached the adjacent accommodation as shown in green color in the site plan. It is held in Sukumari Dass and Ors. Vs. Musst Saleha Khatoon and Ors., 2011 (1) RCJ 19 (Cal.) that in course of eviction proceedings against a tenant if it is found that tenant concerned has trespassed into other portions of suit holding which lie outside demised premises and has made unauthorized constructions thereon, decree for eviction can also be passed in respect of trespassed area provided there are proper pleadings and evidence in support of such case. It is not necessary to relegate a plaintiff to another suit for such purpose. It is also proved that the respondent has resigned from the petitioner no. 1 company in the year 2003. As the respondent is no more in the employment of petitioner no. 1, therefore, he is liable to be evicted of the suit premises u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act. The petitioners have also proved that petitioner no. 1 requires the suit premises for the use of its employees, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for an eviction order u/s 22 of DRC Act.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - T K Dutt - Full Document
1