Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Section 27 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors vs Naveen Maheshwari on 18 November, 2009
It was held by the
Apex Court in the matter "Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. Naveen Maheshwari,
VIII (2009) SLT 429", that once it is not disputed that the landlord is in bonafide need
of the premises, it is not for the courts to say that he should shift to the first floor or
any higher floor. Shops and business are usually conducted on the ground floor,
because customers can reach there easily. The court can not dictate to landlord which
floor he should use for his business.
Smt. Viran Wali vs Sh. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar on 12 November, 2010
The Delhi High Court in re "Viran Wali Vs.
Keldeep Rai Kochar, cited as 174 (2010) DLT 328", laid down that any business
which is being run from the ground floor will attract more customers than the
business being run from the basement and the tenant can not landlord as to how and
in what manner the landlord should use his own property. The bona fide requirement
i.e. storage of goods is not disputed hence the petitioner cannot be directed by the
respondent how to use the space owned by him.
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Rishal Singh vs Bohat Ram & Ors. on 21 July, 2014
In the case of Rishal Singh Vs. Bohat Ram (2014) 144 DRJ 633
it was held, when the tenant controverts the accuracy of the site plan filed by
the landlord, he is required to file a copy of the site plan he believes to be
correct so as to guide the Court in finding the discrepancies of the site plan
filed by the landlord; without such site plan filed, mere contentions raised to
this effect will be considered meritless.
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Satish Kumar vs Subhash Chand Agarwal on 28 August, 2012
Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in Satish Kumar Vs. Subhash Chand Agarwal 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4447
(SLP (C) No.27431/2012 -15th October, 2012) held that if a tenant does not
file his site plan showing that the plan filed by the owner is incorrect, then, the
site plan filed by the owner would be assumed to be correct.
Kailash Chand Gupta (Huf) vs M/S Telu Ram Amar Chand & Co on 8 December, 2021
Further, if the petitioner owns a space himself, he cannot be forced to
use a rented space for his business requirements while the tenant enjoys the suit
property. The petitioner cannot be expected to pay rent for running a business to earn
livelihood when he has a space available with him and suitable for running the same
business. On this subject, reference can be have to decision given in the case of
"Kailash Chand Vs. Chand, 1998 RLR 603" wherein it was held that if an owner is
living in the tenanted premises, he is entitle to seek eviction of his tenant and this
desire cannot be held to be imaginary, fanciful or unnatural.
1