Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (1.13 seconds)M/S.Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co.Ltd vs Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors on 4 October, 2005
15.8 In Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. V. Vimlalabai
E 08/13 53/60
Prabhulal and Ors. (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 252, it was observed:
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
15.7 In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta
, [1999] 6
SCC 222 this Court has held that an alternative accommodation, to entail
denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in
comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking
eviction.
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008
14.12 As far as the arguments regarding the school being a charitable
play school and therefore the bonafide need being not covered under section
E 08/13 41/60
14 (1) (e) DRC Act as need is not for any commercial purpose or residential
purpose are concerned, it is to be seen that the law as contained in the above
provisions underwent a change after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
titled as Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India" reported as AIR 2008
SUPREME COURT 3148. Prior to passing of said judgment eviction on the
ground of bonafide need u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act was not maintainable in
respect of property let out for commercial purposes.
Mohd. Ayub & Anr vs Mukesh Chand on 5 January, 2012
16.2 Reliance may also be placed upon the law laid down in Om
Parkash Arora Vs. Ratan Mala Jain 2013 (1) AD (Delhi) 253 and Mohd.
Ayub Vs. Mukesh Chand (2012) 1 AD (SC) 473. In the case at hand it will
be worthwhile to note that the tenanted premises was used by the respondent
for running a dry cleaning shop. However the respondent right to carry on
the said business was curtailed and the respondent is/can no longer carry on
the said business at the tenanted premises in view of the undertaking given
by him before Hon. High Court of Delhi as well as orders of Hon. High
Court dated 03.09.2012, 20.02.2013 and 12.07.2013 as is evident from Ex.
Ex.PW1/11, Ex. PW1/12, PW1/75 and Ex. PW1/77 etc. Admittedly he is no
longer carrying on the business/activity of dry cleaning in the tenanted
premises.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987
12.16 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shanti Sharma and
Ors. Vs. Ved Prabha and Ors 33 (1987) DLT 80 had the occasion to
consider the import of word owner in context of section 14(1) (e) of Delhi
Rent Control Act and observed as under:
T.C. Rakhi vs Usha Gujral, Lucknow on 8 October, 1968
12.17 In T C Rekhi Vs. Usha Gujral, 1971 RCJ 322, at page
326 it was observed that :