Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Raj Kumar Khanna vs Parduman Singh on 4 October, 2013
In the case titled as Raj Kumar Khanna vs. Parduman Singh
passed in RC Rev. No. 548/2012 and C.M. No. 18936/2012 on
04.10.2013; the Hon'ble High court of Delhi observed as under:-
Mohd. Ayub & Anr vs Mukesh Chand on 5 January, 2012
In the case of Mohd. Ayub vs. Mukesh Chand
(2012) 2 SCC 155 it was observed that the
hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying
their own premises would be far greater than the
hardship the respondent would suffer by having
moved out to another place. We are mindful of the
fact that whenever the tenant is asked to move out
of the premises some hardship is inherent. We
have noted that respondent is in occupation of the
premises for a long time. But in our opinion, in the
facts of this case that circumstance cannot be sole
determinative factor."
Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs vs Chaganlal Sundarji And Co on 13 October, 1999
In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as
Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Chagan Lal Sundarji
& Co. (1999) 8 SCC 1 wherein it was held that:-
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 21 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Sh. Labhu Lal vs Smt. Sandhya Gupta on 28 September, 2010
In "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta" [2011(1) RCR,(Rent) 231
(Delhi)], it has been held by this Court that the children are very much
dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and
such a requirement is a bonafide one.