Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973
"So long as the tenant retains the right to possession there is no parting with possession in terms of clause (b) of Section 14(1) of the Act. Even though the father had retired from the business and the sons had been looking after the business, in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the father had divested himself of the legal right to be in possession. If the father has a right to displace the possession of the occupants, i.e., his sons, it cannot be said that the tenant had parted with possession. This court in Aft. Krishnawati v. Shri Hans Raj, 1974 Rent Control Reporter 163 = (1974)1 S.C.C. 289, had occasion to discuss the same' aspect of the matter. There two persons lived in a house as husband and wife and one of them who rented the premises, allowed the other to carry on business in a part of it, question was whether it amounted to sub letting and attracted the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This Court held that if two persons live together in a house as husband and wife and one of them who owns the house allows the other to carry on business in a part of it, it will be in the absence of any other evidence, a rash inference to draw that the owner has let out that part of the premises. In this case if the father was carrying on the business with his sons and the family was a joint Hindu Family, it is difficult to presume that the father had parted with possession legally to attract the mischief of section 14(1)(b) of the Act.
Mohammad Kasam Haji Gulambhai vs Bakerali Fatehal1 (D) By Lrs on 8 September, 1998
Very close to the facts of the present case is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambai v. Bakerali Fatehali (D) by LR.'s, 1998(2) Apex Court Journal, 471; Herein a petition was filed on the ground of sub-letting. The tenant had entered into a partnership with his sons and ultimately retired from partnership handing over premises and business to his sons. There was no proof that lease was taken for benefit of family. It was held that it would amount to unlawful sub-letting. Identical is the position herein. Therefore, the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority requires no disturbance. In the peculiar, facts, since the landlord is a stranger to any arrangement between the tenant and the third person, adverse inference could easily be drawn. The alleged petitioner, Parikshat Kumar was setting up his title in the sense that he is a member of the Hindu Undivided Family who was the tenant. It is incorrect, he is running his own business therein independently and there is thus no escape but to approve the finding of the learned Appellate Authority.
Jagir Kaur And Anr. vs Nirmal Singh And Anr. on 6 May, 1993
" .... It will be seen from the evidence that has been discussed above that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had parted with the possession in favour of any body else and as such the mere fact that the business of Deepak Radios was being ran in the demised premises would not dislodge the case of the petitioner. Banta Singh's case (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel to the respondent is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the stand of the tenant was that the joint Hindu Family business was being carried on in the demised premises and on the failure to prove this fact, a presumption was raised against him. The facts of the case in hand are totally different. The stand of the petitioner-tenant from the very beginning was that he was in exclusive possession of the demised premises and was running the business through his servants and after receiving finances from his mother Smt. Bimla Rani.
Section 114 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Parkash Chand And Anr. vs Bhan Chand And Anr. on 2 January, 1995
13. This clearly answers the said argument that has been advanced. This decision of the Supreme Court had been relied upon by this Court in the case of Parkash Chand and Anr. v. Bhan Chand and Anr., (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 147. Herein also, there was tender of rent on behalf of the tenant and subtenant.
Jagan Nath vs Vasdev on 6 November, 1992
17. This decision, indeed, will not come to the rescue of the petitioner because herein it was specifically held that the legal possession remained with the tenant. He had a right to dispossess the tenant. As noticed hereinafter this is not the position in this case. This Court in the case of Jagan Nath v. Vasdev, (1993-1)103 P.L.R. 371, was considering a case where the mother was stated to have sublet the property. The ground of eviction was held to have not been established and it was rejected with the findings which reads as under-
Rajbir Singh vs Virender Singh And Ors. on 18 January, 1996
6. To the same effect is the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shadi Lal and Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Rewari, (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 633 and in the case of Rajbir Singh v. Virender Singh and Ors., (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 703.
1