Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)Section 14D in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
S.N. Bhatia And Ors. vs Sita Bijai Singh And Ors. on 11 March, 1993
Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has argued that
the present petition is not barred and the principles of resjudicata
are not applicable to it as the petition has been filed after change in
circumstances. It has been argued that in the year 1984 the family
of the petitioner was small and with the passage of time the sons of
the petitioner got married and they are now having their own
children and thus the size of the family of the petitioner has
increased considerably. Hence, the facts and circumstances for
filing the present petition are not same as that of the previous
petition. Reliance has also been placed by the counsel for the
petitioner on the judgment of S.N. Bhatia Vs Sita Bijai Singh 1993
RLR 431, wherein it was held that a second eviction petition if base
on a new cause of action is not barred by resjudicata. The counsel
for the petitioner has also argued that the court can also taken into
consideration the subsequent facts as considerable time has
passed since the original eviction petition was filed as the younger
son of the petitioner has been blessed with two children during the
17
pendency of this eviction petition and size of the family of the
petitioner has further increased. I find force in the contentions of
the counsel for the petitioner and I am of the considered opinion
that the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner due to
change in the circumstances on account of subsequent
developments is not barred by the principles of resjudicata. It is
well settled law that the cause of action for filing the petition for non-
payment of rent as well as for bonafide requirement is a recurring
cause of action.
Dr. B.K. Dawesar vs Sh. K.K. Sapra on 31 May, 2005
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for
the respondent and have perused the record carefully. Counsel for
the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments Vinod Chander
Vs Ishwar Dayal 2005 (1) RCR 306; Mahabir Prashad & Anr. Vs
Ved Wati Pathak & Ors. 2007 (1) RCJ 224; Manmohan Nath Vs
Subhash Chander 2004 (2) RCR 357; Jai Rani Vs Rakesh
Kumar Gupta & Ors. 2006 (1) RCJ 320; Dr. B.K. Dawesar Vs
K.K. Sapra 2006(1) RCR 223; S.N. Bhatia Vs Sita Bijai Singh
1993 RLR 431; Wing Commander Tapeshwar Puri (through
LRs) Vs Lee Club Francais 2007 (1) RCJ 1, in support of his
arguments. I have carefully perused the judgements relied upon by
the counsel for the petitioner besides the pleadings of the parties,
6
documents filed by them and evidence produced before the court.
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008
10. The respondent in his WS has taken the stand that the suit
property was let out to him for composite purposes and he is using
the same for manufacturing potato chops and samosas and for
storing raw material for the aforesaid commercial activities. He has
8
also examined RW-2 Padam Chand to prove these facts.
However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by
LRs Vs Union of India and Anr. 148 (2008) DLT 705 (SC) has
struck down this requirement u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act and hence the
purpose of letting is now become immaterial in deciding the petition
for bonafide requirements. The issue has thus become redundant.
Bonafide requirement and alternate accommodation:-
Vinod Chander vs Ishwar Dayal on 14 October, 2004
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for
the respondent and have perused the record carefully. Counsel for
the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments Vinod Chander
Vs Ishwar Dayal 2005 (1) RCR 306; Mahabir Prashad & Anr. Vs
Ved Wati Pathak & Ors. 2007 (1) RCJ 224; Manmohan Nath Vs
Subhash Chander 2004 (2) RCR 357; Jai Rani Vs Rakesh
Kumar Gupta & Ors. 2006 (1) RCJ 320; Dr. B.K. Dawesar Vs
K.K. Sapra 2006(1) RCR 223; S.N. Bhatia Vs Sita Bijai Singh
1993 RLR 431; Wing Commander Tapeshwar Puri (through
LRs) Vs Lee Club Francais 2007 (1) RCJ 1, in support of his
arguments. I have carefully perused the judgements relied upon by
the counsel for the petitioner besides the pleadings of the parties,
6
documents filed by them and evidence produced before the court.
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Krishan Kumar And Radha Rani vs Vimla Saigal on 4 April, 1975
In Krishan Kumar Vs Vimla Sehgal 1976 RCR
249, it was held that when landlord's earlier petition on bonafide
requirement failed. He can filed second application on the same
ground when the circumstances change. Thus, the arguments
raised by the counsel for the respondent are without any merits and
the same are rejected.
Mahabir Parshad And Anr. vs Ved Wati Pathak And Ors. on 19 October, 2006
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for
the respondent and have perused the record carefully. Counsel for
the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments Vinod Chander
Vs Ishwar Dayal 2005 (1) RCR 306; Mahabir Prashad & Anr. Vs
Ved Wati Pathak & Ors. 2007 (1) RCJ 224; Manmohan Nath Vs
Subhash Chander 2004 (2) RCR 357; Jai Rani Vs Rakesh
Kumar Gupta & Ors. 2006 (1) RCJ 320; Dr. B.K. Dawesar Vs
K.K. Sapra 2006(1) RCR 223; S.N. Bhatia Vs Sita Bijai Singh
1993 RLR 431; Wing Commander Tapeshwar Puri (through
LRs) Vs Lee Club Francais 2007 (1) RCJ 1, in support of his
arguments. I have carefully perused the judgements relied upon by
the counsel for the petitioner besides the pleadings of the parties,
6
documents filed by them and evidence produced before the court.
Manmohan Nath vs Subhash Chander And Anr. on 7 July, 2004
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for
the respondent and have perused the record carefully. Counsel for
the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments Vinod Chander
Vs Ishwar Dayal 2005 (1) RCR 306; Mahabir Prashad & Anr. Vs
Ved Wati Pathak & Ors. 2007 (1) RCJ 224; Manmohan Nath Vs
Subhash Chander 2004 (2) RCR 357; Jai Rani Vs Rakesh
Kumar Gupta & Ors. 2006 (1) RCJ 320; Dr. B.K. Dawesar Vs
K.K. Sapra 2006(1) RCR 223; S.N. Bhatia Vs Sita Bijai Singh
1993 RLR 431; Wing Commander Tapeshwar Puri (through
LRs) Vs Lee Club Francais 2007 (1) RCJ 1, in support of his
arguments. I have carefully perused the judgements relied upon by
the counsel for the petitioner besides the pleadings of the parties,
6
documents filed by them and evidence produced before the court.