Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Sh. Mohan Babu Sharma vs Smt. Ram Wati Devi on 22 July, 2013 cites

Sushil Kanta Chakravarty vs Rajeshwar Kumar on 24 March, 1999

11. The first and foremost is the ownership. The word "owner" has not been defined in the DRC Act. It is settled law that in a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act, the landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. The legislature has used the word "owner" in Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act in contradistinction with a landlord as defined in the Act who is not an owner but holds the property for the benefit of another person and merely collects the rent. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the Judgment titled as Sushil Karta Chakravorty V. Rajeshwar Kumar AIR 2000 Delhi 413 and Shanti Sharma & Ors. V. Ved Prabha & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 193.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 146 - Full Document

Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987

11. The first and foremost is the ownership. The word "owner" has not been defined in the DRC Act. It is settled law that in a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act, the landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. The legislature has used the word "owner" in Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act in contradistinction with a landlord as defined in the Act who is not an owner but holds the property for the benefit of another person and merely collects the rent. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the Judgment titled as Sushil Karta Chakravorty V. Rajeshwar Kumar AIR 2000 Delhi 413 and Shanti Sharma & Ors. V. Ved Prabha & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 193.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 577 - G L Oza - Full Document

M/S. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & ... vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) By ... on 5 January, 2004

16. This contention is devoid of merits as it is well-settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. Reference can be made to Judgments titled as M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. vs Bhagabanda Aggarwal (Dead) by LRs (2004) 3 SCC 178,; Sri Ram Pasricha vs Jagganath & Ors )1976) 4 SCC 184; Dhanndu v. Kalawati bai & ors (2002) 6 SCC 16.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 321 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Bata India Ltd. vs Anil Kumar Bahl on 1 March, 2012

28. Merely, because, the nature of business which the petitioners propose to carry out has not been specified, will not, per-se, convert the need of the landlord from bonafide to malafide need. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon the Judgment Bata India Ltd., Vs. Anil Kumar Bahl CM No. 11467/2011 dated 01/03/2012. Thus, the petitioners cannot be non-suited on the ground that they have not been able to establish their requirement for shop as bonafide for their failure to disclose the nature of business propose to be carried in that shop.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - I Kaur - Full Document
1