Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.54 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Nirmala Kumari & Ors vs Girish Kakkar & Anr on 30 March, 2022
60.In Nirmala Kumari & Ors vs Girish Kakkar & Anr RC.REV.
156/2018 (17th May 2024), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held
that the Court is not to sit in the armchair of the landlord. It
was held :- "29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has
repeatedly held that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the
landlord and dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is
to be best utilized by him. The landlord is the absolute owner of his
property and is the best person to decide which property is to be utilized
in what way. The respondent cannot dictate as to how the landlord is to
utilize his property. If the respondents/landlord states that the alternate
premises are unsuitable to meet his/her needs, the Court is to believe the
same. The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific
requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard.".
Precision Steel And Engineering Works ... vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal on 7 October, 1982
29.In Precision Steel Engineering Works and Anr. Vs Prem
Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1518",
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :- "If the averments in the
affidavit disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the
satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from
recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon
the Controller to grant leave. It is immaterial that facts
alleged and disclosed are controverted by the landlord
because the stage of proof is yet to come. It is distinctly
possible that a tenant may fail to make good the defence
raised by him. Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of
the same are materially different from each other and one
cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when
plausibility has to be shown.".
Sarwan Dass Bange vs Ram Prakash on 29 January, 2010
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:52:40
+0530
in the Eviction Petition. Once the landlord has stated that he
requires the tenanted property for a particular use, the Courts
are required to believe the statement to be true and genuine,
unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent
material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical. The
learned ARC is further required only to sift/comb through the
averments made in the leave to defend application and see
whether the tenant has established with cogent and material
defence, facts which disentitle the landlord from an Eviction
order. This Court in "Sarwan Dass Bange v. Ram Prakash"
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
34.Qua bonafide requirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999
Supreme Court 100, held :- ".....The crux of the 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 bona fide. 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 bona fide.
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
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Page 17by
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh AJAY SINGH
of 46
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978
37.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul
Ahad Khan And Ors, 1979 AIR 272, 1979 SCR (2) 1 while
dealing with civil appeal in relation to Jammu & Kashmir
Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 held :- "...The
distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept
in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as
nothing but a desire as the High Court has done in this case.
It seems to us that the connotation of the term 'need' or
'requirement should not be artificially extended nor its
language so unduly stretched or strained as to make it
impossible or extremely difficult for one landlord to get a
decree for eviction. Such a course would defeat the very
purpose of the Act which affords the facility of eviction of the
tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds. This
appears to us to be the general scheme of all the Rent Control
Acts, prevalent in other State in the country. This Court has
considered the import of the word requirement and pointed
out that it merely connotes that there should be an element of
need."
Sunder Singh Talwar vs Kamal Chand Dugar on 11 April, 2018
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:53:37
+0530
Court finds that the bona fide requirement of a married
daughter in an Eviction Petition under section 14(1)(e) of the
DRC Act, has been considered and a consistent view has been
taken that the requirement of a married daughter, would be
t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e R e s p o n d e n t / L a n d l a d y.
11.1 In a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Sunder Singh Talwar vs. Kamal Chand Dugar, in which,
while dealing with a similar factual situation, it was held that
it is not a universal rule that a married daughter can never be
dependent upon her parents: "30.