Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.51 seconds)
Smt. Indiraa Bhasin vs Smt. Jasvinder Dhandial on 3 March, 2020 cites

Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007

Further, the High Court of Delhi made important observations in the decision given in the case titled as "Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450" it has been held that it is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly......".
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 583 - Full Document

Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987

In this regard reference can be have to the decision of the Apex Court in "Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Ved Prabha & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2028", wherein it was held that : ­ "14. The word 'owner' has not been defined in this Act and the word 'owner' has also not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be is that ownership means absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereupon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 577 - G L Oza - Full Document

Suresh Kumar Sharma vs Ravi Shankar Sharma 13 Wpc/2382/2018 ... on 27 August, 2018

In another case law, "Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & others, 155 (2008) DLT 383", it was laid down that a landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under CIS No. 534/2019 Indiraa Bhasin vs Jasvinder Dhandial and ors. Page no. 19 of 23 Transfer of Property Act and he is required to show only that he is more than a tenant.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 161 - S Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next