Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.37 seconds)
Smt. Ajit Kaur vs Sh. Rakesh Juneja @ Sonu Juneja on 20 July, 2018 cites

Mehra-Mehra vs Sant Kaur Grewal on 19 May, 1983

"Section 14(1)(e) of the Act nowhere provides that the bonafide need of the landlord/owner should be in respect of residential premises for a permanent residence only. It is settled law that if the landlord/owner is settled outside India but his visit to India are frequent, his need even for temporary stay in his own premises has to be judged as bonafide need. Therefore, he inspite of having his own property in Delhi cannot be compelled to live in the places other than his own property and to face inconvenience. His lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal (as his Lordship then was), in M/s Mehra & Mehra vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Sant Kaur Grewal, 21 (1982) DLT 196 upheld a claim under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, by a landlord who was living at Srinagar and wanted her premises in Delhi only to pass winter months, holding that it was her bonafide need. It was held that since the landlady had no other alternative accommodation available to her in Delhi, her need was to be treated as ARC No. 113/17 Ajit Kaur & Ors. vs. Rakesh Juneja Page 20 / 25 bonafide.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Saroj Khemka vs Indu Sharma And Anr. on 1 March, 1999

In the case of Saroj Khemka vs. Indu Sharma, reported in 1999 (49) DRJ 719, a Single Judge of this Court upheld an order of the Controller, rejecting leave to defend application, in case of a landlord/owner who was living abroad and wanted his premises at Delhi for stay in India for short durations. It was categorically observed that an owner cannot be compelled to stay at a Hotel or have an alternative accommodation."
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next