Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs Chandrakant M. Patel & Ors on 4 February, 1974
(70) These three cases, to which I have so far referred, were decided before the judgment of the Supreme Court in Phiroze Bamanji Desai's case. It seems to me that they are opposed to the ratio of the decision by the Supreme Court, and must, therefore, be treated as impliedly overruled.
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 21 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Freddy Fernandes vs P.L. Mehra on 3 January, 1973
Furthermore, the requirement must be bona fide and this means that it must be honest and genuine and not frivolous or whimsical: Freddy Fernndes v. P. L. Mehra, 2nd 1973 (1) Delhi 682, and Vas Dev Dhawanv. Triloki Nath. (1967) 69 PLR260(D).
Mattulal vs Radhe Lal on 23 April, 1974
575, and Mattulal v. Radha Lal, . Some of the errors, to which I have referred, come also within this category.
Mangharam Chuharmal vs B.C. Patel And Ors. on 22 September, 1970
Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra vs Ram Swarup Bhagwan Singh And Anr. on 29 March, 1950
(66) An unreported case, Lal Chand v. Dr. Jai Bhagwan, has been relied upon in that judgment. I think, that case entirely accords with my view. There, the landlord owned two houses. In one of them he lived himself, and the other was with a tenant. The house in which be himself lived was in a dilapidated condition; and, one day, it actually collapsed. Consequently, the landlord had to move out, and was able to obtain accommodation temporarily in the house of a relation. Obviously, on those facts, it could not sensibly be said that he had other accommodation available. There was no reasonable security of tenure. It was just a make shift arrangement or. as the judgment describes it, an emergency accommodation.