Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.39 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Pawan Kumar Jain vs Smt. Sunita Jain on 6 March, 2018
RC ARC No : 302/2018 Parveen Kumar Jain Vs. Anita Jain 18 of 18
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Sarwan Dass Bange vs Ram Prakash on 29 January, 2010
34. The respondent has raised the plea that the petitioner has alternative suitable
premises and thus this petition is not maintainable is without any merits as neither the
respondent has brought forth any material to show an alternative suitable
accommodation nor details of such alternative suitable accommodation is given. Clearly,
this is a sham defence. It is well settled that the tenant is required to give all 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 bonafide 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. (See:
Sarwan Dass Bange V. Ram Prakash 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252).
Hajee K. Assainar & Co. vs Chacko Joseph on 9 December, 1983
16. The principle attracted herein is once a tenant always a tenant. The tenant cannot
dispute the title of his landlord or his successor-in-interest. Since the predecessor-in-
interest of the petitioner had inducted the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent as a
tenant, the respondent is estopped from challenging the title of the petitioner, in view of
the provisions of section 116 of the Evidence Act. Further, if the transfer of the landlord's
title is valid, and even if the tenancy is not attorned in favour of the transferee, the lease
continues. Thus, a transferee of the landlord's rights, steps into the shoes of the landlord
with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting
tenancy. Attornment by the tenant is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of the
landlord's rights and there is no such statutory requirement. Reference may be made to
the case of Hajee K. Assainar vs. Chacku Joseph AIR 1984 Ker 113.
Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta vs Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul & Ors on 10 April, 1997
In the case
of Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta vs. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul AIR 1997 SC 2437, it was
held that attornment by tenant is not necessary though it is desirable.
Rishal Singh vs Bohat Ram & Ors. on 21 July, 2014
18. It is stated by the respondent that the site plan is wrong as according to the site
plan the petitioner has shown property built upto 5 th floor however the petitioner has
raised illegal construction upto 6th floor. But the respondent has not placed on record any
document in support of this contention and in the present case the respondent/tenant has
not filed any site plan of her own. Mere bald averments in this regard is of no assistance
to the respondent. Thus, the said submission is without any merits. Furthermore, it has
been held in Rishal Singh Vs. Bohat Ram (2014) 144 DRJ 633 that when the tenant
controverts the accuracy of the site plan filed by the landlord, he is required to file a copy
of the site plan he believes to be correct so as to guide the Court in finding the
discrepancies of the site plan filed by the landlord; without such site plan filed, mere
contentions raised to this effect will be considered meritless.
Satish Kumar vs Subhash Chand Agarwal on 28 August, 2012
Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in Satish Kumar Vs. Subhash Chand Agarwal 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4447 (SLP
(C) No.27431/2012 preferred where against was dismissed vide order dated 15th
October, 2012) held that if a tenant does not file his site plan showing that the plan filed
by the owner is incorrect, then, the site plan filed by the owner would be assumed to be
correct.