Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
M/S. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & ... vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) By ... on 5 January, 2004
14. It is, therefore, evident that Ms. Ganga Devi was not
supposed to prove absolute ownership. She was only required
to prove that she was something more than a tenant. It is an
admitted case of the parties that Sh. Ganga Ram had inducted
the respondent as a tenant in respect of the tenanted shop. Ms.
Ganga Devi was the lawfully wedded wife of Sh. Ganga Ram.
After the demise of her husband and mother-in-law, Ms. Ganga
Devi became a co-owner of the property. it is well-settled that
one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the
property generally owned by the co-owners. Reference can be
made to Judgments titled as M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing
Co. vs Bhagabanda Aggarwal (Dead) by LRs (2004) 3 SCC
178,; Sri Ram Pasricha vs Jagganath & Ors )1976) 4 SCC
184; Dhanndu v. Kalawati bai & ors (2002) 6 SCC 16.
Bata India Ltd. vs Anil Kumar Bahl on 1 March, 2012
30. Merely, because, the nature of business which the
petitioners propose to carry out has not been specified, will not,
E No.100/11/08 (Old No.E No.41/08) Page 11 to 14
per-se, convert the need of the landlord from bonafide to
malafide need. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon the
Judgment titled as Bata India Ltd., Vs. Anil Kumar Bahl CM
No.11467/2011 dated 01/03/2012. Thus, the petitioners cannot
be non-suited on the ground that they have not been able to
establish their requirement for shop as bonafide for their failure
to disclose the nature of business proposed to be carried in that
shop.
Mukesh Kumar vs Rishi Prakash on 6 October, 2009
34. Thus, the argument advanced by the ld. counsel for
the respondent is without any merits. Even in the case of
Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rishi Prakash, 174 (2010) DLT 64, it was
held that "the courts have repeatedly held that mere failure to
plead even the necessary ingredients in an eviction petition is
not fatal to its maintainability".
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Sushil Kanta Chakravarty vs Rajeshwar Kumar on 24 March, 1999
13. The first and foremost is the ownership. The word
"owner" has not been defined in the DRC Act. It is settled law
that in a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act, the landlord
is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under
E No.100/11/08 (Old No.E No.41/08) Page 5 to 14
Transfer of Property Act. The legislature has used the word
"owner" in Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act in contradistinction with a
landlord as defined in the Act who is not an owner but holds the
property for the benefit of another person and merely collects the
rent. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the Judgment titled
as Sushil Karta Chakravorty V. Rajeshwar Kumar AIR 2000
Delhi 413 and Shanti Sharma & Ors. V. Ved Prabha & Ors.
(1987) 4 SCC 193.