Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.22 seconds)Section 4 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
M/S. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs Lt. Col. Satya Pal Wadhwa & Anr. on 19 September, 2012
7.4 The respondents also relied on several other judgments i.e. Aggarwal
Papers v. Mukesh Kumar, 194 (2012) DLT 605; Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Lt. Col.
Vinod Ahuja vs Anil Bajaj And Anr. on 20 September, 2012
S.P.
Wadhwa & Anr., 194 (2012) DLT 244; Vinod Ahuja v. Anil Bajaj & Anr., 194 (2012)
DLT 203 and Mohd. Jafar & Ors. v. Nasra Begum, 191 (2012) DLT 401. All the
judgments are on the issue of presence of triable issues in leave to contest application
and none of them have any factual bearing to the facts in hand.
Mohd.Jafar & Ors. vs Nasra Begum on 9 July, 2012
S.P.
Wadhwa & Anr., 194 (2012) DLT 244; Vinod Ahuja v. Anil Bajaj & Anr., 194 (2012)
DLT 203 and Mohd. Jafar & Ors. v. Nasra Begum, 191 (2012) DLT 401. All the
judgments are on the issue of presence of triable issues in leave to contest application
and none of them have any factual bearing to the facts in hand.
Precision Steel And Engineering Works ... vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal on 7 October, 1982
In
Precision Steel and Engineering Works (supra) it has been observed that, "Prayer for
leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima facie case has been
disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclose a prima facie case i.e.
such facts as to what disentitles the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the
court should not mechanically and in routine manner grant leave to defend.".
S.Harbant Singh Sahni And Anr vs Smt.Vinod Sikari on 25 April, 2012
In a similar case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court i.e case title
S. Harbans Singh Sahni & Ors. v. Smt. Vinod Sikari, the Hon'ble High Court while
rendering its judgment on 25.04.2012 in the RC Revision No. 27/2010 dealt with
contention of the petitioner No.2 to the effect that the tenancy premises was required by
one Sh. Harjot i.e. son of the petitioner No.1 aged 30 years to carry on a detailed
business. The contention was met with a counter to the effect that the petitioners did not
disclose that they were engaged in business of bed and breakfast scheme. The Hon'ble
Court rejected the contention saying that the landlord is the best judge of his
requirement and has complete freedom in the matter.
Habib vs Smt. Jayamma And Ors. on 13 July, 2004
2. It has been held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Habib Vs. Smt.
Jayamma & Ors., 2005 (1) RCR Rent 235 that "The landlord is entitled to evict the
tenant from shop which is suitable to him. Tenant cannot dictate landlord to occupy
other shop which had fallen vacant but was not suitable."
M/S Bajaj Associates And Others vs Vinod Kapoor And Others on 19 March, 2009
3. It has been held by the Hon'ble Punab & Haryana High Court in M/s Bajaj
Associates & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors, 2008 (4) CCC 442 that, "It is not for the
tenant to dictate to landlord as to how he has to run or adjust his business."