Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. vs Kavita P Lalwani on 25 May, 2012
In "Sky Land International Pvt Limited V. Kavita P. Lalwani (2012) 191
DLT 594, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held, "Howsoever defective the title of the
landlord may be, a tenant is not permitted to dispute the same unless he has surrendered the
possession of his landlord. It is based upon the salutary principle of law and justice that a
tenant who could not have gotten the possession but for his contract of tenancy admitting
the right of the landlord, cannot be allowed to dispute the title of his landlord after taking
undue advantage of the possession that he got from the landlord. Of course, he can deny his
title after he gives up the possession, having the restored the status quo."
Sriram Pasricha vs Jagannath & Ors on 24 August, 1976
14. Similarly in the case titled as "Shri Ram Pasricha V. Jagannath, AIR 1976
SC 2335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a tenant in a suit for eviction is estopped
RC ARC 641/16 page no.5/9
from questioning the title of the landlord under Section 116 of the Indian evidence act.
Under the general law, in a suit between landlord and tenant, the question of title to the
lease property is irrelevant.
Sarwan Dass Bange vs Ram Prakash on 29 January, 2010
In the case titled as "Sarwan DassBange Vs. Ram Prakash", 167 (2010) DLT
80 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"The legislative intent is of expeditious disposal of the application for
ejectment of tenant filed on the ground of requirement by the landlord of the
premises for his own occupation; a special category of landlords requiring the
premises for their own use has been created; if there is any breach by the
landlord, the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession; the landlord
who evicts a tenant on the ground of own requirement is not only prohibited
from letting out the premises or disposing of the same but also required to use
the same for his own residence only. It was held that these restrictions and
RC ARC 641/16 page no.6/9
conditions inculcate inbuilt strong presumption that the need of the landlord is
genuine; the conditions and restrictions imposed on the landlord make it
virtually improbable for the landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of the
tenant, unless his need is bonafide no unscrupulous landlord in all probability,
under this section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant
considering the onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that
this inbuilt protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the
landlord would approach the Court his requirements shall be presumed to be
genuine and bonafide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant
to prove that the requirement is not genuine. The tenant is required to give all
the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence if
available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in
a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide
requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would
not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that
his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine."
Dattatraya Laxman Kamble vs Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde & Anr on 28 April, 1999
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul
Moulali Kotkunde", (1999) 4 SCC 1 held that the phrase "reasonably and bona fide
required by the landlord" is not to be tested on par with "dire need" of a landlord because
the latter is a much greater need.
Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs vs Chaganlal Sundarji And Co on 13 October, 1999
Similarly, in "Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal
Sundarji & Co"., (1999) 8 SCC 1 it was held that the word "reasonable" connotes that the
requirement or the need is not fanciful or unreasonable but need not also be a "compelling"
or "absolute" or "dire necessity". A reasonable and bonafide requirement was held to be
something in between a mere desire or wish on the one hand and a compelling or dire or
absolute necessity on the other hand.
Prithipal Singh vs Satpal Singh(D) Th.Lrs on 18 December, 2009
It was observed,
"The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh
(supra), thereof is that whatever has to be stated for seeking leave to defend has
necessarily to be stated and accompanied by necessary documents within a
period of 15 days, and after 15 days period, there cannot be one or more
additional affidavits and one or more additional documents to seek leave to
defend and that it is not permissible to raise any fresh grounds which are not
found in the leave to defend application. Accordingly, the effort of the learned
senior for the petitioner to refer to me the documents filed in the rejoinder to
the leave to defend application is declined, and which rejoinder obviously has
been filed beyond the period of 15 days statutory period. A rejoinder affidavit
can only be filed to clarify and support the facts and documents already
pleaded and not for fresh facts and documents."
Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008
6. The petitioner filed his reply, wherein he denied the allegations of the
respondent and reiterated the averments in the petition. The petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India"