Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.53 seconds)
Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar vs Sh. Shyam Nath on 5 January, 2012 cites

Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007

9. Though, the respondent has disputed the ownership of Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar, father of the petitioner over the property in question, but the respondent has not disputed the fact that Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar had inducted him in the suit premises. Therefore, the respondent cannot challenge the ownership of Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar over the property in question. It is also not in dispute that petitioner is son of Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar and after the death of Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar, the respondent has been paying the rentals in respect of the suit premises to the petitioner since 1986. The petitioner has also placed Eviction Petition No. E­120/10 Page 9 of 25 on record the photocopy of rent receipts issued to the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises in which name of owner has been shown as Sh. A. K. Bhatnagar, petitioner herein. The said rent receipts also bears the signature of respondent and have not been disputed by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent cannot be heard saying that the petitioner is only a rent collector collecting rent after the death of Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar. When the respondent himself admits the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, he is estopped from disputing the title of Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar and after his death of the petitioner over the property in question. It has been held in Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that, "It is settled preposition 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 under Section 14 (1) (e) of the 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 Eviction Petition No. E­120/10 Page 10 of 25 paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a 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." Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the respondent that Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar, father of the petitioner was not the owner of the property in question and the petitioner is only a rent collector after the death of Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 583 - Full Document

Smt. Sudesh Kumari Soni & Anr. vs Smt. Prabha Khanna & Anr. on 3 October, 2008

20. Further, it is a common knowledge that the ground floor is more suitable and convenient for the purpose of running a clinic in terms of attending the patients as well as in providing medical facilities in urgent and emergent situation. Therefore, the upper floors cannot be said to be suitable and convenient for running the clinic by the petitioner and his son, more so in view of the fact that upper floors are being used by the petitioner and his family for residential purposes. It has been held in Sudesh Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Anr., 153 (2008) DLT 652 that, "It is not for tenant to dictate terms to landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of tenanted premises - suitability has to be seen for convenience of landlord and his family members and on the basis of Eviction Petition No. E­120/10 Page 19 of 25 circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habit and background." It is also a settled law that landlord is the master of his choice and tenant cannot suggest the landlord how he should use the space available with him.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 264 - M Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next