Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
32. With respect to the third ingredient of the availability of other
suitable alternate accommodation, it is to be noted that to entail denial
of the claim of the landlord, an alternate accommodation must be DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.14/21 DEVANSHU SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:13:48 +0530
reasonably suitable, in comparison with the tenanted premises in
question. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr.
Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507, has held that for an
eviction petition to fail on the ground of availability of alternate
suitable accommodation, the availability of another accommodation
must be suitable as well as convenient in all respects as the tenanted
accommodation from which the landlord seeks eviction of the tenant.
Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs vs Chaganlal Sundarji And Co on 13 October, 1999
In case of Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by L. Rs. vs. Chaganlal
Sunderji and Co., AIR 1999 SC 3864 the Apex Court held
joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back one's
premises.
Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987
In Shanti
Sharma & Ors. v. Ved Prabha & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 193, the
Digitally
signed by
DEVANSHU
DEVANSHU SAJLAN
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.5/21 SAJLAN Date:
Suresh Kumar Sharma vs Ravi Shankar Sharma 13 Wpc/2382/2018 ... on 27 August, 2018
2026.02.24
15:13:00
+0530
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the term "owner" in this context is
to be understood vis-à-vis the tenant, meaning thereby that the
landlord must show himself to be "something more than the tenant."
Reliance may also be placed on Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. v.
Leela Wati & Ors., 155 (2008) DLT 383, wherein the same principle
was reiterated.
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
18. In respect of the question of bona fide requirement, it is a settled
law that the court must presume the bona fide requirement of the
landlord and that the burden to refute the said presumption squarely
lies on the tenant. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant is
insufficient. It was held in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co.
Sh. Ravinder Singh vs Sh. Deepesh Khorana on 10 December, 2012
19. It is further pertinent to take note of the well-settled proposition
of law that a landlord can bring a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of
the DRC Act for the requirement of their children. It has been held in
a catena of judgments that it is considered a moral duty of parents to
settle their children, and as such, a petition filed by a landlord for his
son or daughter is maintainable under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC
Act (see Ravinder Singh v. Deepesh Khorana, MANU/DE/
6474/2012).
Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By Lrs. & ... vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak & Ors on 13 August, 1999
29. Again, in Ramkubai v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak,
(1999) 6 SCC 540, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that
employment during litigation does not defeat bona fide need, holding:
Ashok Sehgal & Anr. vs Subhash Chandra Sharma on 21 February, 2014
30. The same principle has been applied by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in Ashok Sehgal v. Subhash Chandra Sharma, 2014 SCC
OnLine Del 815, wherein it was held that: