Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)Asha M. Jain vs The Canara Bank And Ors. on 15 October, 2001
"23. Therefore, an SA/GPA/will transaction does not
convey any title nor creates any interest in an
immovable property. The observations by the Delhi
High Court in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank [(2001)
94 DLT 841] , that the "concept of power-of-attorney
sales has been recognised as a mode of transaction"
Joginder Pal vs Naval Kishore Behal on 10 May, 2002
11. There is no contention/averment on the part of the Tenant that Kapil
Rishi is gainfully employed. The need pointed out by the
Respondent/landlord is to settle his son. The Apex Court in Joginder Pal v.
Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397, has observed as under:
Anil Bajaj & Anr vs Vinod Ahuja on 8 May, 2014
12. As far as property No.1133, Khasra No.52-53, Haibat Pura, Main
Market, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043, which also includes the tenanted
premises and has four floors, is concerned, even assuming that the Tenant is
correct in stating that other floors of the said premises are available to the
Landlord to accommodate his son, this Court cannot close its eyes to the fact
that a garment shop can be run best from the ground floor. It is also to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA RC.REV. 50/2022 Page 14 of 19
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
noted that a Tenant cannot dictate the Landlord as to from where he should
conduct his business. The Apex Court in Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja, (2014)
15 SCC 610, has reiterated that it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms to
Landlord and advise him on what he should do and what he should not do.
The relevant portion of the aforesaid Judgment has been reproduced as
under:
Shri Anil Jain vs Shri Bhagwan Shankar Khanna on 30 July, 2014
13. Similarly, this Court in Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, 2014
SCC OnLine Del 3855, has held as follows :
Abid-Ul-Islam vs Inder Sain Dua on 7 April, 2022
14. Nothing has been produced by the Tenant to show that another
premises is available either to the Landlord or to his son - Kapil Rishi, where
he can start his business. No triable issue, therefore, can be raised just by
stating that the Landlord is in possession of another premises from where a
garment shop under the name and style Varun Vastra Bhandar is being run.
The Supreme Court has already opined on how vague assertions by the
tenant are not sufficient for the learned Rent Controller to grant leave to
defend, In Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 419, the
Apex Court has held as under :
Suresh Kumar Sharma vs Ravi Shankar Sharma 13 Wpc/2382/2018 ... on 27 August, 2018
15. Similarly, this Court in Rajender Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Leela Wati &
Ors., 155 (2008) DLT 383, has observed as under :