Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.21 seconds)Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Hari Shankar vs Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury on 5 December, 1961
There is no dispute of the scope of revision as defined in either in the case of Hari Shankar and others (supra) or as explained in the case of Pooran Chand (supra) or again as explained in the case of Phiroze Bamanji Desai (supra) and Mattulal (supra). The court has to see that over all decision is according to law as opposed to individual error here and there and manifest injustice.
Section 35 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Jagatjit Industries Ltd. vs Sh. Rajiv Gupta on 25 September, 1980
He also brought to my notice a decision of Sultan Singh, J. in the case of M/s Jagatjit Industries Ltd. New Delhi v. Rajiv Gupta, and two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel and others, and Mattulal v. Radhey Lal .
Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs Chandrakant M. Patel & Ors on 4 February, 1974
There is no dispute of the scope of revision as defined in either in the case of Hari Shankar and others (supra) or as explained in the case of Pooran Chand (supra) or again as explained in the case of Phiroze Bamanji Desai (supra) and Mattulal (supra). The court has to see that over all decision is according to law as opposed to individual error here and there and manifest injustice.
Mattulal vs Radhe Lal on 23 April, 1974
There is no dispute of the scope of revision as defined in either in the case of Hari Shankar and others (supra) or as explained in the case of Pooran Chand (supra) or again as explained in the case of Phiroze Bamanji Desai (supra) and Mattulal (supra). The court has to see that over all decision is according to law as opposed to individual error here and there and manifest injustice.
Krishan Kumar And Radha Rani vs Vimla Saigal on 4 April, 1975
In this connection be brought to my notice the decision of Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. in the case of Krishan Kumar v. Vimla Sehgal, 1976 Rcr 249.
Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971
(27) The same view was followed by Vaidialingam, J. in the case of Madan Lal Puri (supra). A finding of fact is not vitiated nor become subject matter of revision under section 115 or section 33 of the Act or 1952 or under the proviso to sub-section (8) of section 25-B of the Act when it is a question of re-appreciation of evidence. It is totally different where the entire approach in understanding the requirement of the landlord is erroneous. Here was the case where landlord was using this house in a particular fashion. When the landlord deposed in examination-in-chief that the hall is used by his wife for receiving visitors of her constituency, there was no challenge to it in the crossexamination. Therefore, the existing user of the hall for official use of the wife of the landlord was not disputed. If that be the position, that accommodation ceases to be available to ihe landlord for his bona fide use as residence. To say that landlord cannot file a petition for asking the tenant to vacate the premises for private office for his wife or office for himself is wholly erroneous approach. This was not the plea of the landlord. Plea of the landlord, I may be guilty of repeating, is that the hall is not available for residential purpose and when the court judges bona fide requirement, it also looks into the question as to what is the accommodation available with the landlord. Therefore, once admitted user of the hall is there, we are left with just four living rooms. May be at odd hours when the visitors from the constituency are not there, the family may be able to use it but by and large that hall ceases to be in normal use of the family. Thus, we are left only with four rooms of which I have given the details earlier besides the two kitchens, bath and W.Cs. Surely, the bath rooms and the WCs cannot be converted into living rooms ; living rooms are only four. The family of this size certainly requires living rooms for the family. There are four educated persons living in the premises. They certainly require living rooms and each must also requires a bed room. Where is the bed room to be provided for the two couples ? Learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the verandah in between the rooms and the kitchen on one side of living room can be used as dining room. We cannot force the landlord to use it as dining room. It is really a passage from the bed rooms to the two bath rooms and the kitchen at the back. How the landlord should live is surely not going to be as per the thinking of the tenant.