Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.40 seconds)Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 14A in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Suresh Kumar Sharma vs Ravi Shankar Sharma 13 Wpc/2382/2018 ... on 27 August, 2018
In the judgment Rajender Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Smt. Leela Wati
and Ors. (2008) 155 DLT 383 it was held that the requirement of the married
daughter is on the same footage as requirement of the son. In view of the
abovesaid judgment it can be said that in Indian Society, the child is dependent
upon parent for requirement of the immovable property even if the child is not
financially dependent upon the parents. Accordingly, nowhere it has come on
record that the daughters of petitioner are working somewhere and they do not
ARC. No. 1281/2016 Gopal Kishan Vs. Kalu Ram Page 17/20
require the space in question. Daughters of the petitioner want to open a tuition
centre and both of them are highly educated, therefore the averment of
respondent does not raise a triable issue.
Govind Dass And Ors. vs Kuldip Singh on 28 April, 1970
Meaning thereby that if a family member is financially not dependent upon the
landlord then it does not mean that he is not dependent upon the landlord for
residence (Gobind Dass v. Kuldip Singh, AIR 1971 Delhi 151 DB).
M.M. Mehta vs Chaman Lal Kapoor on 20 December, 1979
Dependent
member of landlords family means dependent for accommodation and not
financially (M.M. Mehta v. Chaman Lal, ILR1980 (1) Del 94.
Baldev Sahai Bangia vs R.C. Bhasin on 16 April, 1982
Hon'ble Supreme
Court had held that the word 'family; has to be given not a restricted but a wider
meaning so as to include not only the head of the family but all members of
descendents from the common ancestor who are living together in the same
house (Baldev Sahai Bangia v. R. C. Bhasin, AIR 1982 SC 1091).
Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery And Co on 7 January, 2000
Moreover, in the judgment titled as Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm
Prem Machinary [AIR 2000 S.C.534] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is
settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for
residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter.
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
33. Furthermore, In the judgment tiled as "Sarla Ahuja v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd." [AIR 1999 S.C. 100] it was held: