Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.27 seconds)Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Om Prakash vs Dev Raj Kohli on 26 May, 1997
In the case of Om Prakash v. Dev Raj Kohli (supra), it has been held that
if the landlord while submitting the site plan of the premises in his
possession omitted to furnish the plan of the second floor in his
possession because the same was not been used for residence, by non
furnishing of the plan of the second floor, the landlord did not come it
any illegality. Moreover, during crossexamination PW1 has
categorically stated that she is having only three rooms on the first floor.
The respondent has failed to file any site plan showing any more rooms
available with the petitioner on the first floor. Thus, the site plan filed by
the petitioner is duly proved.
Mumtaz Begum & Ors. vs Mohd. Khan on 12 January, 2010
In the case of Mumtaz Begum v.
Mohd. Khan (supra) it has been held that nothing wrong can be found
with the choice express by the landlords in opting to evict tenants from
the tenanted premises rather than opting to occupy property which is far
away, even if held to be available to the landlords. There is a rationale in
the choice exercised by the landlord for the premise close to their existing
accommodation rather than far away.
O.P. Soni vs Om Kumar And Anr. on 17 August, 1995
30. One more contention is raised by the respondent is that the landlord
wants to increase the rate of rent or let out to some other person.
However, the said contention of the respondent is without any basis as in
case, the petitioner tries to sell the premises or let it out to any other
person at exorbitant rate, the remedy u/s 19(2) of the DRC Act is
available of the respondent, for taking repossession of the tenanted
premises. In case of O.P. Soni v. Om Kumar (supra) it has been held that
such averments are only a mere assertion and a desperate plea on the part
of the respondent.
Kanta Goel vs B.P. Pathak & Ors on 1 April, 1977
There is no specific requirement of any NOC from the other
coowners. In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814; Pal Singh
v. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 444; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6
SCC 16; Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei
Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178; and, Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar
Lal Jain (2006) 2SCC 724 it is held that the landlord, even if not the
absolute owner, is at least one of the coowners, is entitled to maintain a
petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. Thus, the ownership of the
petitioner over the premises in question for the purpose of the DRC Act
as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship between the parties
stands duly proved.
Pal Singh vs Sunder Singh (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 10 January, 1989
There is no specific requirement of any NOC from the other
coowners. In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814; Pal Singh
v. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 444; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6
SCC 16; Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei
Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178; and, Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar
Lal Jain (2006) 2SCC 724 it is held that the landlord, even if not the
absolute owner, is at least one of the coowners, is entitled to maintain a
petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. Thus, the ownership of the
petitioner over the premises in question for the purpose of the DRC Act
as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship between the parties
stands duly proved.
Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai And Ors on 8 July, 2002
There is no specific requirement of any NOC from the other
coowners. In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814; Pal Singh
v. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 444; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6
SCC 16; Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei
Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178; and, Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar
Lal Jain (2006) 2SCC 724 it is held that the landlord, even if not the
absolute owner, is at least one of the coowners, is entitled to maintain a
petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. Thus, the ownership of the
petitioner over the premises in question for the purpose of the DRC Act
as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship between the parties
stands duly proved.
M/S. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & ... vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) By ... on 5 January, 2004
There is no specific requirement of any NOC from the other
coowners. In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814; Pal Singh
v. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 444; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6
SCC 16; Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei
Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178; and, Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar
Lal Jain (2006) 2SCC 724 it is held that the landlord, even if not the
absolute owner, is at least one of the coowners, is entitled to maintain a
petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. Thus, the ownership of the
petitioner over the premises in question for the purpose of the DRC Act
as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship between the parties
stands duly proved.
Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006
There is no specific requirement of any NOC from the other
coowners. In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814; Pal Singh
v. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 444; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6
SCC 16; Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei
Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178; and, Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar
Lal Jain (2006) 2SCC 724 it is held that the landlord, even if not the
absolute owner, is at least one of the coowners, is entitled to maintain a
petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. Thus, the ownership of the
petitioner over the premises in question for the purpose of the DRC Act
as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship between the parties
stands duly proved.