Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.23 seconds)
R.C. Nanda vs Karamjit Singh on 18 December, 2024 cites

Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs Mr. Puneet Saini, Adv. For Petitioner In ... on 31 August, 2022

16. Impliedly, the respondent has acknowledged that the mother of the petitioner was owner of the premises in question. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner is legal heir of the owner of the property and the only objection is that the relinquishment deed does not bear correct address of the mother of the petitioner. Since both the parties trace ownership via mother of the petitioner, I find that the petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that he is owner of the premises in question and that he has better title to the property than the respondent. Reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 11 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 881 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001

2024.12.18 12:20:27 +0530 of the delay in the process if the benefit is declined it would only encourage the tenants to protract the litigation so as to defeat the right. In the instant case it is noticed that the petition filed by the landlord is of the year 2004 which was disposed of by the Rent Controller only in the year 2011. The appeal was thereafter disposed of by the Appellate Authority in the year 2013. The High Court had itself taken time to dispose of the Revision Petition, only on 06.03.2017. The entire delay cannot be attributed to the landlord and deny the relief. If as on the date of filing the petition the requirement subsists and it is proved, the same would be sufficient irrespective of the time lapse in the judicial process coming to an end. This Court in the case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, MANU/SC/0089/2001 : (2001) 2 SCC 604 has held that the landlord should not be penalised for the slowness of the legal system and the crucial date for deciding the bonafide requirement of landlord is the date of application for eviction, which we hereby reiterate" (emphasis supplied by me). It is natural for the position the parties to change with time. Each family and the circumstances of the family change with time. Since this application has taken 14 years to be decided, it is obvious that changes took place in the family of the petitioner and even the petitioner himself expired during the rigmarole of this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that delay in judicial proceedings cannot be a tool for the tenant to escape eviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 297 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next