Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.38 seconds)Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Mr. Hot Chand vs Mr. Dhanpat Rai & Ors on 27 January, 2010
Here it is not
out of mention to place that in case titled as Hot Chand Vs. Dhanpat Rai &
ORS. 168 (2010) Delhi Law Times 78 wherein it has been held:
Ram Narain Arora vs Asha Rani & Ors on 31 August, 1998
So far as the ratio of judgments mentioned at S.No. 1 i.e. Santhosh Devi
Soni Vs. Chand Kiran 2000(3) CCC 178 SC, at S. No. 2 i.e. Ram Narain
Arora Vs. Asha Rani and others AIR 1998 SC 3012, at S. No. 3 i.e. Puran
Chand & Anr. Vs. Yaspal 113 (2004) DLT 421 as well as at S. No. 11 i.e.
Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Subhash Chand Aggarwal RC.REV No. 127/2011
concerned, are also not applicable to the given facts & circumstances of the
present case as even in the present leave to defend application there is no
where objection has been taken that the present petition has been filed for the
additional accommodation rather the respondent contested the present eviction
petition on the ground that the premises in question is not suitable for the
residence purpose as the whole area is notified for mix land use.
Smt. Sudesh Kumari Soni & Anr. vs Smt. Prabha Khanna & Anr. on 3 October, 2008
In Case titled Prativa Devi Vs. T. V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353
Referred (Sudesh Kumari Soni Vs. Prabha Khanna, 2008 (153 DLT 652 :
Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal on 11 July, 2001
So far judgment mentioned at S. NO. 4 i.e. Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal
(2001) 5 SCC 705 and at S. No. 5 i.e. M. M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Shara
and others AIR 1981 SC 1113, concerned are also not applicable to the facts &
circumstances of the present case as they are not related to the provision of
Section 25(B)(4)(5) and 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
Shri Hari Shanker vs Shri Madan Mohan Gupta on 30 April, 2004
Since in the present leave to defend, respondent has failed to file any
document to substantiate that the present eviction petition has been filed with
malafide intention and in view of the judgment i.e. Hari Shanker Vs. Madan
Mohan Gupta, 111 (2004) DLT 534, the contention is appears to be vague
hence present issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the
respondent.
M.M. Quasim vs Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors on 7 April, 1981
So far judgment mentioned at S. NO. 4 i.e. Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal
(2001) 5 SCC 705 and at S. No. 5 i.e. M. M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Shara
and others AIR 1981 SC 1113, concerned are also not applicable to the facts &
circumstances of the present case as they are not related to the provision of
Section 25(B)(4)(5) and 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh on 15 December, 2000
So far as the judgments placed by respondent which are at S. No. 6 i.e.
Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh (2001) 1 SCC 706 and at S. No.10 i.e.
Jatinder Singh Nanra Vs. Sarita Rani RC. REV No. 81/2010 concerned, the
ratio of both judgment is not applicable to the given facts & circumstances as I
am of the considered view, after taking into consideration the judgment i.e.
M. L. Prabhakar Vs. Rajiv Singhal reported at 1(2001) SLT 282 (2001) 2
SCC 355 wherein it was held the Court would permit the landlord to satisfy
the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels
would be most suited for his purpose, the Court would not in such a case
thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not
one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy
his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide requirement needs a
practical approach instructed by the realities of life. An approach either too
liberal or too constructive or pedantic must be guarded against"..