Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Kashmiri Lal Kataria vs Navneet Gupta on 10 July, 2014 cites

Smt. Viran Wali vs Sh. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar on 12 November, 2010

The court below has also on this aspect referred to the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Viran Wali Vs. Sh. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar, Rev. No. 124/2010 decided on 12.11.2010. This is the position prevailing in law because a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord from where he should conduct his business once the shop on the ground floor is more suitable than the premises other than the one in the basement or the first floor and above.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 157 - V B Gupta - Full Document

Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors vs Naveen Maheshwari on 18 November, 2009

5. The aforesaid paras rightly conclude that shops on the ground floor are more feasible for doing business instead of commercial premises in the basement or on the first floor and above. The court below has in this regard referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. Naveen Maheshwari, VIII (2009) SLT 429 in para 17 of its judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 201 - Full Document

Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008

3. There is no dispute with respect to the ownership and the purpose of letting is immaterial in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Satya Wati Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2008) 5 SCC 287. The only issue required to be considered in this case is whether the tenanted shop on the ground floor i.e Shop Nos. 2002 towards Bank Street and 2051, towards Naiwalan, Gali No.39, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005 is bonafidely required by the respondent/landlord.
Supreme Court of India Cites 77 - Cited by 1265 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Hari Om Gupta vs Sh. Ram Kishore Sharma & Ors. on 25 November, 2011

19. Considering all these aspects, both these ingredients are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The ruling relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the ruling i.e O.P.Gupta Vs. R.K.Sharma (supra) is regarding the residential requirement of the landlord whereas RC.Rev.524/2012 Page 3 of 6 in the case in hand the petitioner needs the suit premises for commercial purposes.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 16 - M L Mehta - Full Document
1