Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (2.27 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 12 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
In "Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta" reported as AIR
1999 SUPREME COURT 2507, it was held:
Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007
In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 405, it has been
clearly held that "A tenant who alleges that landlord has at his disposal
other accommodation has to place before the Ld. ARC some material to
show that the landlord has a specific alternative accommodation at his
disposal". Mere bald allegation with respect to availability of additional
accommodation with the petitioner does not hold any basis and cannot be
a basis to deny the petitioner of his right to vacate the tenanted premises
for his bonafide requirement".
Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh on 15 December, 2000
It is also settled that at the stage of granting leave to defend, the test that
is applied is whether in the facts disclosed in the affidavit, filed seeking leave to
defend, prima facie shows that the landlord would be dis entitled to obtain an
eviction order and not, where at the end, the defence taken by the tenant may
fail. If the application filed under Section 25B disclosed some substantial triable
issues, then it would be grave injustice to brush them outrightly, without testing
the veracity of the claims made by the tenant/applicant. The law in this regard is
well settled in various pronouncements and reference can also be made to
Inderjeet Kaur V. Nirpal Singh, VII(2001) SLT 602=(2001) 1 SCC 706,
wherein it was held as under:
Sh. Labhu Lal vs Smt. Sandhya Gupta on 28 September, 2010
In Labhu Lal v. Sandhya Gupta, 173 (2010) DLT 318, it was held that
"Before leave to defend is granted, the respondent must show that some triable
issues which dis-entitled the applicant from getting the order of eviction against
the respondent and at the same time, entitled the respondent to leave to defend
existed. The onus is prima-facie on the respondent and if he fails, the eviction
follows."
Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Baldev Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini on 5 October, 2005
9. It has been held in Baldev Singh v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778,
that the legislative intent of expeditious disposal of 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
use only. These restrictions and conditions inculcate in 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 tenant. Unless his need is bonafide, no unscrupulous landlord
in all probability, under the Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of
a tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him. This inbuilt
protection in the Act for the tenant implies that whenever the landlord would
approach the Court, his requirement 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.