Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.32 seconds)Smt. Viran Wali vs Sh. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar on 12 November, 2010
13.4 In Viran Wali Vs Kuldeep Rai Kochhar , 174 (2010) DLT
328 , in para 34, 35 and 36 observed as under
Mukesh Kumar vs Rishi Prakash on 6 October, 2009
13 Now coming to the plea regarding alternate
accommodation. It is stated by the respondent that petitioner has one
shop at the first floor and one office at the second floor. Admittedly,
the shop at the first floor is under the tenancy of one Ashok Kumar
and is lying locked since long. As regards the office on the second floor
is concerned, it is stated by the petitioner that the space is not suitable
accommodation to meet his requirement as no business would run
profitably on the second floor and further it is very difficult for him to
climb up to second floor at this juncture of age. Admittedly, the
remaining shops in the entire property where the tenanted premises is
also situated are under occupation of various tenants
13.1 In Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rishi Prakash , 2009 (2) RCR, 485 it
was held that :
Khem Chand & Ors. vs Arjun Jain & Ors. on 13 September, 2013
c) Khem Chand & Ors. Vs. Arjun Jain & Ors, RCR 442/2012 & C.M.
No. 9444/2013.
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008
(1) the premises in question were let out for residential purpose
or commercial purposes (as the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India and
another, 148 (2008) DLT 705 (SC),
(2) he/she is the landlord/land lady and owner of the suit
premises,
(3) the premises required bona fide by him/her for occupation
as residence for himself/herself or any member of his family
dependent upon him/her for residence and for any person for
whom the premises are held, and
(4) the landlord/land lady or such person has no other suitable
residential accommodation.
Sushil Kanta Chakravarty vs Rajeshwar Kumar on 24 March, 1999
10.2 In Sushil Kanta Chakarvarty Vs. Rajeshwar Kumar , 79
(1999) DLT 210, it has been held that
"in case of a petition u/s. 14 (1) (e) of the Act, in
order to show the ownership, it is not necessary to
show absolute ownership. The legislature used the
word "owner", in section 14 (1) (e) not in the sense
of absolute owner, but it was used in contra
distinction with a landlord as defined in the Act
who is not an owner but who owns the property for
the benefit of another person and merely collects
the rent. If the person collected the rent for himself
and for his own benefit and the property is his own
even in the loose sense and no one is claiming
rights over the property, then he is considered as
owner for the purpose of section 14 (1) (e) of the
Act. Even possessory rights over the property of a
person have been given recognition as ownership
Prem Singh Tanwar Vs. Jagdish Page 10 of 23
E No. 27/13 11 20.03.2014
visa vis tenant under Delhi Rent Control Act.
Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007
10.3 In Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi , 157 (2009) DLT 450
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that
" it is settled proposition of law that in order
to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi
Rent control Act, the court has to see the title and
right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only
thing to be seen by the court is that the landlord
had been receiving rent for his own benefit and
not for and on behalf of someone else. If the
landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on
behalf of someone else he is to be considered, as
the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the
premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of
the premises cannot stand in the way of an
eviction petition u/.s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. Neither
the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of
imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord
and that too when the tenant has been paying rent
to the landlord. Section 116 of Indian Evidence
Act creates estoppel against such tenant. A tenant
can challenge the title of landlord only after
vacating the premises and not when he is
occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who
denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises ,
to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly.
Meenakshi vs Ramesh Khanna And Anr. on 16 May, 1995
E No. 27/13 13 20.03.2014
Respondent has merely denied the ownership of petitioner, and has
not disclosed as to who is the actual owner, if not the petitioner. In
proceedings u/s. 14 (1) (e) of the Act, the tenant is never a contender
for title to the property. When the tenant does not even aver that there
is any other person having a better title to the property, there is no
worth of the plea of denial of ownership of the petitioner [ reliance
place on the judgment of Meenakshi (supra)]. In the present petition
the question of title is not to be decided and the only question which is
for consideration is whether the petitioner being the owner, solely or
otherwise, and landlord of the premises is entitled to seek possession
of the premises for his bonafide requirement. Thus the objection
raised by the respondent in this regard is not only frivolous but
without any merit and does not give rise to any triable issue.
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
11 Now coming to the other aspect as to whether the
premises is bonafide required by petitioner and as to whether he has
any other suitable alternate accommodation. The fact that petitioner is
retired Government employee from DTC is not disputed. Respondent
in his entire application for leave to contest has not stated about any
other business or work being undertaken by petitioner. Merely
because petitioner is getting pension or has got certain retirement
benefits, cannot lead to the inference that his requirement qua the
tenanted premises is not bonafide or is actuated with malafide.
11.1 In Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Ram Babu Agarwal vs Jay Kishan Das on 7 October, 2009
11.3 In Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs Jay Kishan Das 2009 (2) RCR
455 it was held that
"we are of the opinion that a person can start
a new business even if he has no experience in the
new business. That does not mean that his claim for
starting the new business must be rejected on the
ground that it is a false claim. Many people start
new businesses even if they do not have experience
in the new business and some times they are
successful in the new business also".