Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.42 seconds)Section 27 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Duli Chand (Dead) By L.Rs vs Jagmender Dass on 8 December, 1989
28. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
authority titled as Duli Chand Vs. Jagmender Dass RCR 1990.
have gone through the authority relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for
the petitioner, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
said authority is not applicable in the present case.
Munna Lal (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs Suraj Bhan And Ors. on 4 March, 1975
29. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent
has relied upon Jagan Nath (deceased) through LRs Vs. Chander
Bhan & Ors 36 (1988) DLT 267 SC) in which it has been held that,
"It is a settled law that parting with possession means giving
possession to persons other than those to whom possession had
been given by lease and the parting with possession must have
been by the tenant; user by other person is not parting with
possession so long as the tenant retains the legal possession
himself, or in other words there must be vesting of possession by
the tenant in another person by divesting himself not only of
physical possession but also of the right to possession. So long as
E101/10 18/26
the tenant retains the right to possession, there is no parting with
possession in terms of clause (b) of section 14(1) of the Act.
Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty on 30 July, 1987
30. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon
the authority titled as Dipak Banerjee Vs. Smt. Lilabati
Chakraborty, AIR 1987 SC 2055 in which has been held that,
"There was no evidence that the subtenant was in exclusive
possession of the portion and that he paid any rent, held that there
was no creation of subtenancy".
1