Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.06 seconds)Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Navneet Lal vs Deepak Sawhney on 27 October, 2010
16. The petitioner has claimed the shop in question for her
bonafide use. It is argued by counsel for the respondent that
various properties are owned by the sons of the petitioner in
Sahibabad and Noida but all these properties and places are not
E177/11 Smt. Gian Kaur v. Jeet Singh Page 9 of 13
relevant for deciding the present controversy as the petitioner
being a senior citizen of more than 70 years of age requires the
shop in question bonafide for running her business of readymade
garments from the shop only. Being a widow, she has a right to
start her own business and to earn her livelihood and properties
of the children in other states are no ground to disallow the
petitioner to start her own work. It is also not restricted in any law
that a person at the age of 70 years cannot do any business. The
other contention of the respondent is that the son of the
petitioner are also having several residential flats in Delhi but,
again these properties are not relevant for deciding the present
controversy as these flats are residential and no commercial
activity can be carried out from these flats. It is held by the
Hon'ble Court in Navneet Lal v. Deepak Swahney 2010 (120) DRJ
346 that:
"The landlord is the best judge of his residential
requirement and has a complete freedom in the matter
and it is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord
how and in what manner he should live. The Supreme
Court deprecated the solicitous approach of the High
Court and held that there is no law which deprives the
landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property."
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8
SCC 119 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "The Crux of the
E177/11 Smt. Gian Kaur v. Jeet Singh Page 10 of 13
ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act is that
the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted
premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he
requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller
shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not
bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and
when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent
Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the
landlord is bonafide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the
tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can
adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted
premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of the
requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an
endeavor as to how else the landlord could have adjusted
himself."
Des Raj Ashok Kumar vs Raj Kumar And Ors. on 1 June, 1999
In Ashok Kumar v. Raj Kumar & Ors. 2007 (1) RCR 417,
Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that "Tenant cannot
create a clog on the extension of business of landlord or dictate
terms to the landlord and in the ejectment application only
relationship of landlord and tenant is to be seen and sufficiency
cannot be judged from the view point of the tenant."
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008
8. The petitioner has averred that the tenanted premises is
nonresidential/commercial that is a shop on the ground floor.
However, the controversy has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India and Anr. (5) SCC
287 and now the premises let out either for residential or
commercial purposes can be got vacated by the landlord for
bonafide requirements.
S.P. Sethi vs R.R. Gulati And Ors. on 24 May, 2006
In S. P. Sethi v. R. R. Gulati 2006 (2) RCR 205 it was held that
"Landlord was running departmental store in ground floor. He
wanted first & second floor for expansion of business. Held, the
need was bonafide. The need of the landlord has to be examined
broadly and reasonably considering the social status an other
requirements."
Dewan Chand Puri vs Gurchet Singh on 2 February, 2006
In Diwan Chand Puri v. Gurchet Singh 2006 (1) RCR 302 it
was held that "Landlord was running business and he required
adjoining portion for business of spare parts and accessories and
it was ancillary to the working of repair of cars. It was held that
need was bonafide and the landlord is the best judge of his
needs."