Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.50 seconds)Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
J.C. Mehra vs Kusum Gupta on 26 May, 2003
In J.C. Mehra Vs. Smt.
Kusum Gupta, 2005(2) RCR, 656 (DHC), it was held that the expression 'owner'
has not been defined in Rent Act. By reference to judicial pronouncement, it has
been held that expression 'Owner' is not an owner in an absolute sense but the
expression refers only to a person who has a right/title more than the tenant.
Rita Lal vs Raj Kumar Singh on 13 September, 2002
10.Further, in Rita Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh, 2002(2) RCR, 463 (SC), it has been
held that a tenant having been inducted by the landlord so long as he remains in
possession cannot deny the title of his landlord in view of the rule of estoppal
contained in Section 116 of the Evidence Act. Hence, in my considered opinion, the
petitioner has established that she is the owner of the tenanted premises. Accordingly,
this ingredient stands satisfied.
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Radhey Shyam, H.U.F. vs Shri M.L. Parbhakar on 12 November, 1999
In Radhey
Shyam, H.U.F. Vs. M.L. Parbhakar, 82(1999), Delhi Law Times, 919 (DHC)
where no site plan in rebuttal disputing accommodation available with the petitioner
was filed by tenant, it was held that in the absence of any site plan filed by
respondent, the site plan filed by the petitioner has to be accepted as correct.
Sham Singh Bist vs Sushil Bhatia on 22 January, 1992
17.The respondent has also taken the defence that the petitioner had been pressurizing
him to enhance the rent to Rs.1,000/ p.m. However, in the entire application for
leave to defend or affidavit or even in the rejoinder, no details have been give by the
respondent as to when the petitioner pressurized him to enhance the rent. Hence,
even this defence is without any substance. I am supported in my views by the
judgment of Sham Singh Bisht Vs. Sushil Bhatia, 1992 (1) RCR, 678 (DHC),
wherein a similar plea taken by the tenant that landlord wanted to increase the rent
but without disclosing any details as to when landlord had made demand and nothing
in writing was brought out, was held to be a vague allegation.
1