Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (1.46 seconds)Bhim Singh Saini vs Preeti Gupta on 22 September, 2015
5. By the impugned order, the ARC has granted leave-to-defend to
the respondents principally on two grounds : firstly, that the petitioner
cannot seek eviction for the alleged bona fidé requirement of a
married daughter, since after marriage the daughter must be held to be
dependent upon the husband and her in-laws and not on her parents.
The ARC has purported to find support for this proposition in a
decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Bhim Singh Saini
vs. Preeti Gupta : 223 (2015) DLT 303. Secondly, the ARC holds that
the petitioner had failed to file any document to show that she was
________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC. REV 349/2018 page 7 of 31
owner of only 20% undivided share in the Arya Samaj Road property,
especially since the petitioner herself had placed on record a sale deed
showing that one of her sisters had sold 1/5th share in that property to
the petitioner. This however is evidently incorrect on point of fact,
inasmuch as it has been clarified in the course of arguments in these
proceedings, that this was plainly an erroneous reading of the
document filed, since the sale deed filed related to the Abdul Rehman
Road property, namely the property of which the subject premises is a
part and not to the Arya Samaj Road property. The document in
question is the sale deed by one of the petitioner's sisters, who sold
her 1/5th share to the petitioner, which share alongwith the other 3/5th
share of the other three sisters which they relinquished in the
petitioner's favour, made the petitioner sole and absolute owner of the
subject premises. It was further clarified, that in any case, the Arya
Samaj Road property had since been sold by the petitioner alongwith
her sisters vidé separate sale deeds dated 25.09.2018; and is therefore
no longer available for use at all. This sale is an event subsequent to
the passing of the impugned order; and it was urged that the effect of
this sale may also be considered by the court in these proceedings.
Joginder Pal vs Naval Kishore Behal on 10 May, 2002
"30. The Supreme Court in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore
Behal, (2002) 5 scc 397 : AIR 2002 SC 2256, held as follows:
Sunder Singh Talwar vs Kamal Chand Dugar on 11 April, 2018
In another decision rendered by a single Judge of our High
Court in Vinod Gupta vs. Kailash Aggarwal & Ors.3 where the bona-
fidé requirement of a married daughter was canvassed, the single
Judge relying upon the decision in Sunder Singh Talwar (supra) has
also referred to a 2014 decision as follows :
Rajender Prasad Gupta vs Rajeev Gagerna on 20 March, 2014
The petitioner further relies
upon a decision of a single Judge of this court in Rajender Prasad
Gupta (supra), whereby the court rejected the tenant's contention that
the bona fidé requirement of the landlord's daughter would not sustain
since she was of marriageable age; holding that a daughter's ties with
her family do not end upon her marriage.
Vidyawati vs Shri Gautam Mahajan & Ors on 8 January, 2019
In this view of the matter, order dated 15.05.2018 made in
Eviction Petition No. E-795/2017 titled Vidyawati vs. Gautam
Mahajan & Ors is set-aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to recover
possession of the subject premises, in accordance with law.
Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh on 15 December, 2000
The respondents also rely upon
Inderjeet Kaur (supra) to contend that at the stage of granting leave,
the real test should be whether the facts disclosed in the tenant's
affidavit prima facie show that the landlord would be disentitled from
obtaining an order of eviction; and not whether the defence may fail at
the end.
Santosh Devi Soni vs Smt. Chand Kiran on 20 September, 1999
The respondents next rely on Santosh Devi Soni (supra), in
which the Supreme Court has held that normally leave-to-defend
should not be refused in cases where the landlord has additional
accommodation available.
D.N. Gupta vs Jaswant Singh on 30 October, 1981
The respondents then rely upon judgments
of single Benches of this court firstly in D.N. Gupta (supra), whereby
the single Judge has held that where there are disputed questions of
fact, such as whether the landlord's son was dependent on him and
whether other existing accommodation owned by the son was suitable
alternate accommodation, leave-to-defend could not be refused.
Prit Pal Singh vs Ramesh Kumar Dora on 6 January, 2014
The
respondents further rely upon Prit Pal Singh (supra) in which the court
held that where there is a doubt as to whether a particular
accommodation can be reasonably suitable, a decision on that aspect
should be taken based on findings of fact, after trial.