Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.90 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 27 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987
28. Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha
& Ors., 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
T.C. Rakhi vs Usha Gujral, Lucknow on 8 October, 1968
In T.C.
Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha
1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner",
it was held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioner has to have a
better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of
all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in
Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the
provision.
Section 26 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Milk Food Ltd. vs Kiran Khanna on 4 May, 1993
It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership
as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B.
Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran
Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar
AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the
petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as
amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and
has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant.
Sheela & Ors vs Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash on 4 March, 2002
The same is reiterated
in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in
AIR 2002 SC 1264.
Jiwan Lal vs Gurdial Kaur And Ors. on 3 January, 1995
In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a Bench
of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a
pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as
follows: