Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Section 45 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Mcd vs Harish Chander And Ors. [Along With ... on 20 July, 2004
10. Record has been perused. Vehement arguments had been
addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Reliance has been
placed upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court reported in 1993(2)
RCR 117 titled as Trilochan Singh vs. Usha Dhir, 2003(IV) Ad (Delhi)
46 titled as Mani Ram vs. Ratan Lal Saini as also another judgment of a
Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (I) AD (Delhi) 83 titled as MCD
CRP No.512/2000 Page 7 of 18
vs. Harish Chander & Ors. to substantiate the submission that where
the tenant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and
contesting claims qua the title of the suit property are involved, it is
only the Civil Court which can determine this question of title; the
Controller would have no jurisdiction to decide disputes in this regard.
Rajendra Tiwary vs Basudeo Prasad & Anr on 9 November, 2001
Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in
2002(1) SCC 90 titled as Rajendra Tiwary vs. Basudeo Prasad and Anr.
to support the submission that the existence of landlord-tenant
relationship is the very foundation of an eviction petition under a rent
control statute and where such a relationship is found not to be
established any further enquiry into the title of the parties is beyond the
scope of a court exercising jurisdiction under such a statute.
Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987
In Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. vs. Smt. Ved
Praha & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 RLR 526, the Apex Court had an
occasion to examine the concept of „owner‟ as envisaged under Section
CRP No.512/2000 Page 15 of 18
14(1)(e) of the DRCA. The relevant extract is noted hereinunder:-
T.C. Rakhi vs Usha Gujral, Lucknow on 8 October, 1968
In T.C. Rekhi Vs. Usha Gujral 1971 RCJ 322, a Bench of this
Court had noted that the word „owner‟ appearing in Section 14 (1)(e) of
the DRCA seems to have been inspired by the word „landlord‟ as
contained in Section 2 (e) of the Act which is wide enough to include a
person receiving or entitling to receive the rent of the premises on
account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person.
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
9. This court is conscious of the fact that it is sitting in its powers of
revision unless and until there is a manifest or patent error which is
evident on the fact of the record interference by the High Court is not
called for. The Apex Court in AIR 1999 SC 2507 Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs.
Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, the Apex Court in this context had noted
herein as under:-