Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)

Man Mohan Mehra vs J.S. Butalia on 4 July, 1983

12. It has further been argued by the counsel for the respondent that the daughter of the petitioner Anjali is earning separately and is having a separate business and cannot be counted as a family member 13 of the petitioner. However, I do not find myself in agreement with the arguments of the counsel for the respondent. For the purposes of determining whether a person is dependent upon landlord while considering petition u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act, it has to be seen whether the said person is dependent upon the landlord for the purposes of residence or not. Even if a person is financially independent and is having separate income, he still may be considered as dependent upon the landlord for the purposes of residence, if he is residing as a family member of the landlord. I am supported in my views by the judgement of our own High Court in Manmohan Mehra, Vs. J.S. Butalia, 1983(2) RLR, 625 wherein it was held that even if the children of the landlord are earning independently but for residence they are dependent upon the parents and the parents need the help of such children in old age and ailment and the need of such children would fall within the terms of need of family. Hence, the requirements of the daughter of the petitioner or her family members who are residing with the petitioner have to be taken into consideration as they are residing along with the petitioner as his family members. Even otherwise, the respondent in his counter-affidavit has made contradictory statements with regard to Anjali. In para 8, it has been stated that Anjali and her son are living on the second floor of 14 the suit property but in para 9 it has been stated that Anjali has been remarried and is now with her husband at Uttam Nagar. The second floor of the house is thus available to the landlord. This shows that respondent himself is not sure as to what defence he has to adopt and he is taking self-contradictory defences.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1