Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.84 seconds)The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Sanjay Chug vs Opender Nath Ahuja & Anr. on 6 January, 2014
13. I also find support from the recent case of Sanjay Chug
vs. Opender Nath Ahuja & Anr. [207 (2014) DLT 271] decided by
Hon. High Court of Delhi relied by counsel for the respondent wherein
it was held :
Anil Bajaj & Anr vs Vinod Ahuja on 8 May, 2014
12. Counsel for petitioner heavily relied on the recent case of
"Anil Bajaj vs. Vinod Ahuja (Civil Appeal no. 5513/14 decided on
08.05.2014 by Hon. Supreme Court of India) but on perusal of facts
of the said cited case and facts of the present case, it is clear that the
same are distinguishable inasmuch as there was no requirement for
expansion of the business in the said cited case and the bona fide
requirement of the petitioner was acceded towards his rights for
choosing the property which were more suitable to him than the other
available properties. However in the present case the ground of
eviction is primarily the expansion of the business and in this regard the
tenant raised an issue about availability of back side portion of the shop
of son of the petitioner.
Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Liaq Ahmed & Ors vs Shri Habeeb-Ur-Rehman on 28 April, 2000
In the case of Liaq Ahmed & Other Vs. Habeeb-Ur-
Rehman, (2000) 5 SCC 708, the Hon. Supreme Court lays down the
guiding factors for deciding such application seeking leave as under :
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Prit Pal Singh vs Ramesh Kumar Dora on 6 January, 2014
8. From the perusal of the petition as a whole, it is clear that
the petitioner is seeking eviction for the sole ground of expansion of
business of her son. It is the established position of law that in cases
where the premises is required for expansion of business, generally
leave should be granted to the tenant to defend the case. Reliance in
this regard can be placed on the cases of (1) Sanjay Chug vs.
Opender Nath Ahuja & Anr. [207 (2014) DLT 271] (2) Opender Nath
Ahuja & Anr. vs. Sanjay Chug (3) Prit Pal Singh vs. Ramesh Kumar
Dora [2014 iv AD (Delhi) 2014] (4) Kanchan Kapoor vs. Sarwan
Kumar [216 (2015) DLT 136] (5) Chaman lal vs. Batuk Prasad Jaitly
[2014 (1) RCR (Rent) 18].
Kanchan Kapoor & Ors. vs Sarwan Kumar on 17 November, 2014
8. From the perusal of the petition as a whole, it is clear that
the petitioner is seeking eviction for the sole ground of expansion of
business of her son. It is the established position of law that in cases
where the premises is required for expansion of business, generally
leave should be granted to the tenant to defend the case. Reliance in
this regard can be placed on the cases of (1) Sanjay Chug vs.
Opender Nath Ahuja & Anr. [207 (2014) DLT 271] (2) Opender Nath
Ahuja & Anr. vs. Sanjay Chug (3) Prit Pal Singh vs. Ramesh Kumar
Dora [2014 iv AD (Delhi) 2014] (4) Kanchan Kapoor vs. Sarwan
Kumar [216 (2015) DLT 136] (5) Chaman lal vs. Batuk Prasad Jaitly
[2014 (1) RCR (Rent) 18].
1