Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.43 seconds)Mohd. Ayub & Anr vs Mukesh Chand on 5 January, 2012
8.17 It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohd Ayub Vs. Mukesh Chand 2012 (1) RCR (Rent) 56 (SC)
that
the Court shall consider the need of the landlord for his self
employed
son or married or unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially
separated daughter or a male lineal descendant as a bona fide need
E No. 5024/2016 Radhey Shyam Tiwari Vs. Raja Ram Page 27 of 32
while dealing with an application for eviction under Section 21(1)(a)
of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972.
Baldev Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini on 5 October, 2005
10. In case the petitioner does not use the tenanted
premises for the purpose as claimed by him, the respondent can
always take recourse to the provisions of Section 19 of the DRC
Act. Reliance may be placed upon the law laid down in Baldev
Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini reported as (2005) 12 SCC 778
wherein it was held that:
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
8.6 In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta ,
1999 (6) SCC 222 it has been observed that:
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
7.3 The form in question bears the photograph of the
respondent. The respondent has claimed in para 10 of his leave to
defend application that the photograph was taken by the petitioner on
the pretext that he requires the same for some bail matter. The details
of the alleged bail matter and other particulars i.e. FIR number, Police
Station etc. are missing. It has also not been mentioned in the leave to
defend application as to when the photograph was given by him to the
petitioner. In the absence of these particulars the plea of the
respondent does not appear plausible and does not appeal to a prudent
mind in given facts and circumstances of the present case.
E No. 5024/2016 Radhey Shyam Tiwari Vs. Raja Ram Page 13 of 32
7.4 The petitioner has claimed himself to be the owner and
landlord of the tenanted premises and to base his claims upon the
tenanted premises as the owner and thus having a right in that
capacity and as the landlord he claims to have let out the property to
the respondent. To establish his case of ownership the petitioner has
relied upon photocopy of the General Power of Attorney, Agreement
to Sell and purchase, Affidavit, Will, Possession Letter, Receipt, all
dated 28.09.1998 executed in favour of petitioner by erstwhile owner
namely Mahngi Ram. These documents executed in the year 1998
notwithstanding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj
Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) Vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC
656 bestow enough title in favour of the petitioner to maintain the
present eviction petition.
Sheela & Ors vs Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash on 4 March, 2002
Reliance may be placed upon the law laid
down in Sheela and ors Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Parkash,
(2002) 3 SCC 375, Rajender Kumar Sharma vs Smt. Leela Wati
reported as 155 (2008) DLT 383 and T C Rekhi Vs. Usha Gujral,
1971 RCJ 322. The law is well settled that to succeed in a petition
under section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act the landlord is not
supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under the Transfer
of Property Act. He is required to show that he is more than a tenant.
T.C. Rakhi vs Usha Gujral, Lucknow on 8 October, 1968
Reliance may be placed upon the law laid
down in Sheela and ors Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Parkash,
(2002) 3 SCC 375, Rajender Kumar Sharma vs Smt. Leela Wati
reported as 155 (2008) DLT 383 and T C Rekhi Vs. Usha Gujral,
1971 RCJ 322. The law is well settled that to succeed in a petition
under section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act the landlord is not
supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under the Transfer
of Property Act. He is required to show that he is more than a tenant.
Sushil Kanta Chakravarty vs Rajeshwar Kumar on 24 March, 1999
Reliance may be placed upon the law laid down in Bharat Bhushan
Vij Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247, Sushil Kanta
Chakarvarty Vs. Rajeshwar Kumar, 79 (1999) DLT 210,
Meenakshi Vs. Ramesh Khanna and anr. , 60(1995) DLT 524 and
Capt. Praveen Davar (Retd.) & Another Vs. Harvansh Kumari and
Ors; 2010 (119) DRJ 560, High Court of Delhi.
Capt.Praveen Davar (Retd.) & Another vs Harvansh Kumari & Ors. on 27 August, 2010
Reliance may be placed upon the law laid down in Bharat Bhushan
Vij Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247, Sushil Kanta
Chakarvarty Vs. Rajeshwar Kumar, 79 (1999) DLT 210,
Meenakshi Vs. Ramesh Khanna and anr. , 60(1995) DLT 524 and
Capt. Praveen Davar (Retd.) & Another Vs. Harvansh Kumari and
Ors; 2010 (119) DRJ 560, High Court of Delhi.
Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007
7.5 In the judgment tiled as Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi
reported as 157 (2009) DLT 450 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
held: