Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.60 seconds)Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008
The basis for what has been done in the
Sharma case as clearly laid down in the Devi case for
RC ARC No.124/16
Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry &
Ors. Page No.14 of 31
striking down the unconstitutional part in Section 14(1)(e).
The division bench further observed that the Constitution
Bench observed the landlord who let out commercial
premises, under changed circumstances, may need bona
fide premises for his own use. The Constitution Bench
suggested that Legislature may consider the advisability of
making the bona fide requirement of the landlord a ground
of eviction in respect of commercial premises as well.The
Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (not enforced) itself noted the need
for providing a ground for eviction to landlord on bona
fide need with regard to residential as well as non-
residential premises.
Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Manika Rani Ghosh & Ors. vs Dharwinder Kaur on 5 December, 2012
It has been held in the case of Manika Rani Ghosh
and Others v. Dharwinder Kaur,197 (2013) DLT 18 that
RC ARC No.124/16
Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry &
Ors. Page No.16 of 31
"8. I subscribe to the view taken by the Ld. RC in deciding
the eviction petition. It is often contended by the tenants
that the landlord has no prior business experience, capacity
or that the suit premises are not suitable for the business
proposed by the landlord.
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Jeet S. Bisht & Anr on 18 May, 2007
It is helad by the court that it is neither equitable nor just
for the tenants of commercial premises to claim that they
should be permitted to enjoy the tennated premises at the
rentals which were established five decaded ago.It is
further stated that issue pending before Apex court in the
case if State of UP v. Jeet S Bisth have no implications to
the present case.
Vinod Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 41 Wps/6638/2016 ... on 16 January, 2018
In the case of Vinod Kumar vs. Ashok Kr. Gandhi
(CA 3793 of 2013), delivered on 05.08.2019 this issue was
discussed in detail and settled. The counsel for the
appellant questioned the correctness of judgment of
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs.
Smt. Gian Devi Anand vs Jeeevan Kumar And Others on 1 May, 1985
The Apex Court examined the Sharma case with
constitutional bench judgment Gian Devi Anand vs.
Jeevan Kumar and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 683 (hereinafter
referred as "the Devi case").
Shashi Kant Jain vs Tilak Raj Salooja & Anr on 1 May, 2012
For instance, similar contentions
were raised by the tenants before this Court in the case
of Sashi Kant Jain v. Tilak Raj Salooja and otr R.C.Rev
167/2010 and have been refuted. Such allegations whereby
the tenant tries to raise questions regarding the age of the
landlord or lack of business experience or suitability of the
suit shop for the business proposed by the landlord and
which are invariably vague do not consist a triable issue.
The tenants/petitionerss made assertions before the Ld. RC
regarding the landlady possessing alternative properties,
but were unable to furnish sufficient documentary
evidence to substantiate the allegations. There is no dispute
that the business cannot be profitably carried from the
residential premises and thus, the plea that the landlady
could start the business form her residence is untenable.
Moreover, it is not for this Court to examine the viability
of the business at the suit premises or assess if it may be a
profitable venture for the landlady".
Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation vs Shrishti Properties Pvt Ltd on 2 November, 2011
It has also been held in the case of Royal Nepal
Airlines v. Shrishti Properties Pvt. Ltd 2012 RLR 28 that
"19.