Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.86 seconds)Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007
13. This Court is conscious that the jurisdiction for review of a
petition under the Rent Control Act is limited. This Court in the case
of Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, has held that
while exercising jurisdiction under the aforesaid provision, the Court
does not act as a Court of Appeal.
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
M/S Adarsh Electricals & Ors. vs Sh.Dinesh Dayal on 25 October, 2010
vi. Adarsh Electronics and Ors. v. Dinesh Dayal, 173 (2010)
DLT 518 wherein the requirement of a retired government servant for
opening an office of Advocate in the premises also by him was found
to be genuine and not a mere desire.
Smt. Viran Wali vs Sh. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar on 12 November, 2010
viii. Viran Wali v. K.L. Kochhar, 174 (2010) DLT 328 to the effect
that the tenant cannot dictate as to how and in what manner landlord
uses his own property.
Smt. Chandra Prabha vs Shri Satish Chand Sharma & Others on 12 August, 2010
x. Chandra Prabha v. Sali Chan Sharma & Ors. which is a
judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 12.8.2011 passed in
First Appeal Order (OS) No.359-361/2010 wherein it has been held
that decision of a probate court is judgement-in-rem binding on the
parties to probate proceedings but also on the whole world.
Crystal Developers vs Smt. Asha Lata Ghosh (Dead)Thr.Lrs.Ors on 5 October, 2004
xiv. Crystal Developers v. Asha Lata Ghosh, AIR 2004 SC 4980 to
the effect that Section 273 of the Succession Act, 1925 refers to
conclusiveness of the probate as to the representative title. It
establishes the factum of the Will and the legal character of the
executor. Under Section 41 of the Evidence Act, the grant operates as
judgement-in-rem and can be set aside on the ground of fraud and
collusion provided it is proved by the party. It is also held that grant
of probate establishes the genuineness of the Will and the person in
whose favour the probate is granted is entitled to convey the title
arising out of the Will approached by the Court.
Satnam Anand & Anr. vs Gurbachan Singh on 17 February, 2011
xv. Satnam Anand & Anr. v. Gurbachan Singh, 2011 II AD
(Delhi) 681 to the effect that lacuna and defect in grant of probate
would never permit tenant to rake up issues to question title of
landlord in eviction petition on the aspect of probated Will.
Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. vs Sudesh Kumar Jassal on 22 August, 2013
9. The Trial Court then considered the judgement of this Court in
Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudesh Kumar Jassal in RCR
No.136/2012, which held that - "it is settled law that in the context of
Delhi Rent Control Act what appears to be the meaning of the term
"owner" is that vis-a-vis the tenant the owner should be something
more than the tenant. The position in law is that the "ownership" of
the landlord for the purpose of maintaining a petition under Section
14(1)(e) of the Act is not required to be an absolute ownership of the
property, and that it is sufficient if the landlord is a person who is
collecting the rent on his own behalf. The imperfectness of the title of
the premises can neither stand in the way of an eviction petition under
Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, nor can the tenant be allowed to raise the
plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too
when the tenant has been paying the rent to the landlord."
M/S. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & ... vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) By ... on 5 January, 2004
11. The Trial Court relied upon M/s. Indian Umbrella
Manufacturing Co. & Ors. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by
LRs Smt. Savitri Agarwalla & Ors., AIR 2004 1321 to hold that the
consent of other co-owners is assumed to be taken unless it is shown
that the other co-owners were not agreeable to the ejectment of the
tenant and suit/petition for their eviction was filed despite their
agreement.