Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.75 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 25 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Amarjit Singh vs Smt. Khatoon Quamarain on 18 November, 1986
11. Counsel for respondent argued that petitioner does not
require suit premises for bonafide requirement as during pendency of
petition, she has let out one room set on the second floor of her property
no.45/4788, Raigerpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to one Sh.Gautam
Khamrui at a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/ and executed a rent agreement
dated 14.07.2010 with effect from 10.07.2010. It is further argued that
after passing the order dated 18.08.2010, petitioner has further given two
rooms on third floor of suit property to Sh.Mithun Podan on 14.10.2010.
Therefore, it is submitted that petitioner has no bonafide requirement of
any premises either for herself or for alleged dependents. He argued that
this fact was not in the knowledge of respondents during pendency of
petition and they only came to know about same after disposal of petition.
M51/2010
6/12
7
Counsel for respondents has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case titled as Amarjit Singh versus Khatoon Quamarain bearing
civil appeal no.3378 decided on 18.11.1986 cited as 31 (1987) Delhi Law
Times 72.
Nand Kishore & Anr. vs Vijay Kumar Gupta on 16 February, 2009
9. So far as application for review under order 47 rule 1 read
with section 114 and Sec. 151 CPC is concerned, it is argued by the
counsel for the petitioner that it is not maintainable in view of judgment of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case bearing no.C.M. (M) no.405/2007 titled as
Nand Kishore and Anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta decided on 16.02.2009.