Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Anil Bajaj & Anr vs Vinod Ahuja on 8 May, 2014
In fact, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Bajaj & Anr. vs. Vinod
Ahuja (supra) inasmuch the facts are also almost identical.
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Dr Jitendra Mohan Gulati vs Hira Lal Singh on 8 April, 2015
I may refer to the stated requirements of the respondent. The
respondent has mentioned several grounds on which the tenanted shop is
required, namely, for business of the respondent who is unemployed; for his
daughter in law Smt.Preeti Gulati who is a housewife; for his other daughter
in-law Smt.Komal Gulati who is also doing business of readymade garments
from the rear portion overlooking a 15 feet wide street, for the need of his
son Shri Mohit Gulati who is also doing business of readymade garments
from the said premises and who needs a trial room for his business and; for
the need of his other son Shri Navneet Gulati so that he can start his own
business. The said bona fide requirements stated by the respondents have not
been seriously disputed by the petitioner. Merely because several grounds
are stated for the bonafide requirement of the same tenanted shop does not in
any manner do away with the bonafide requirement of the respondent. Once
the respondent gets possession of the shop, the respondent would be free to
put it to any one of the stated purposes/requirements. This Court in Jitendra
Mohan Gulati [DR.] vs. Hira Lal Singh (supra) in somewhat similar facts
where the landlord had stated two different requirements held as follows:-
Tarun Pahwa vs Pradeep Makin on 21 December, 2012
(kindly see the case of Inderjit Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh, : 2001
(1) R.C.R. 33 and Tarun Pahwa vs. Pradeep Makin, : 2013 (1)
CLJ 801 Del.)"
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
11. I may first see the scope of the present petition. The Supreme Court in
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr.Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC
222/(MANU/SC/0132/1999) described the revisional powers of this court as
follows:-
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008
The above provisions would in view of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Satyawati Sharma(dead) by LRs vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR
2008 SC 3148 apply to commercial premises also.