Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Lalit Kumar vs Saroj Kumari on 24 March, 1969
In Lalit Kumar Vijay v. Saroj Kumari, 1969 R.C.J. 545 it has been held that mere fact that the tenant had applied for fixation of standard rent would not deprive the requirement of the premises by the landlord of its bona fides. The petitioner has further challenged the bona fide requirement of the respondent on the ground that there is no quarrel between the respondent and her daughter-in-law, that her son is totally independent and she does not require the premises for the residence of her family. The mala fides of a landlord can be considered by taking into consideration his family members and the accommodation available to him. The respondent-landlady on account of her relations with daughter-in-law desires to have a separate mess. She also requires the accommodation for the three grand-children and her daughter's daughter. The accommodation admittedly consists of three rooms. Thus three rooms considered from any standard are not sufficient for the family of the respondent even if her relations with her daughter-in-law are alleged to be cordial. The respondent requires at least one room for herself, one room for her married son, one room for her granddaughter studying in 11th standard, and one room for her grandson studying in 8th standard, one room for daughter's daughter studying in Delhi or a room for her guests specially her married daughter who has been residing in Bihar and visit the respondent. Drawing room and kitchen are also necessary. All family members of the landlady cannot be accommodated in the existing accommodation. Thus it cannot be said that the requirement of the respondent-landlady is not bona fide.
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Precision Steel & Engineering Works And ... vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal (H.U.F.) on 8 December, 1980
(3) In Precision Steel & Engineering works and another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, it has been laid down that the Controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under Sub-Section (4) of Section 25B of the Act and the reply, if any, on behalf of the landlord. If the affidavit disclose such facts as would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, the mere disclosure of such facts must be held sufficient to grant leave. Such facts on which leave to defend may be granted as enumerated by the Supreme Court are that the landlord has other accommodation in his possession which is sufficient for him, that the conduct of the landlord discloses avarice for increasing rent by threatening eviction, that the landlord has been letting out some other premises at enhanced rent without any attempt at occupying the same or using it for himself, that the dependents of the landlord for whose benefit possession is sought are not persons to whom in the eye of law the landlord was bound to provide accommodation ; that the past conduct of the landlord is such as would disentitle him to the relief of possession etc.
(4) In the instant case the petitioner in his application for leave to defend has alleged that the eviction petition is mala fide as the landlady enhanced the rent from Rs. 350.00 to 450.00 per month in May, 1980 and an application for fixation of standard rent was filed wherein interim rent has been fixed at Rs. 380.00 per month ; the requirement of the respondent-landlady is denied ; it has been alleged that she has failed to prove her ownership ; no member of her family is dependent upon her ; the story of mutual quarrels with her daughter-in-law is incredible ; the accommodation with her is sufficient ; the eviction petition is a counterblast to the application for fixation of standard rent and her married daughter does not require the accommodation. The respondent-landlady has denied all these allegations.
1