Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal on 11 July, 2001
Similar statutory provision is made in subsection (e) of
Section 12(1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let
for residential purposes. Thus, the legislative mandate
being clear and unambiguous, the Court is dutybound
to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord
Page 10 of 20 Rajan Kathuria Vs. M/s Om Parkash Naveen Kumar Sahani & Ors. E 172/14
11
as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether
any other reasonably suitable nonresidential
accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is
available. The judgment/order of the court/authority for
eviction of a tenant which does not show that the
court/authority has applied its mind to these statutory
requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court
will be justified in upsetting such judgment/order in
appeal/second appeal/revision. Bonafide requirement,
on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in
recording a finding on the question the court has to bear
in mind that statutory mandate incorporated in Section
12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied
the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in
its proper perspective then the finding regarding
bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere
finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally
arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment."
Kanji Manji vs The Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 February, 1962
15. It is further submitted by the respondent that the petitioner has failed
to implead all the legal heirs of the original tenant late Sh. O.P. Sahani as
Page 13 of 20 Rajan Kathuria Vs. M/s Om Parkash Naveen Kumar Sahani & Ors. E 172/14
14
late Sh. O.P. Sahani had one unmarried daughter Ms. Anju Sahani as well,
who has not been impleaded as party in the present case. It is submitted by
the respondents that after the death of Sh. O.P. Sahani, Ms. Anju Sahani is
managing the business of respondent no. 1 company. However, as per the
case of the petitioner, Ms. Anju Sahani is presently employed with Dairy
Craft (India ) Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, she has got nothing to do with the
business of respondent no. 1. The petitioner has specifically given the name
of the company and its address from where Ms. Anju Sahani is presently
working and also mentioned her salary, which she is drawing from the said
company, meaning thereby that the petitioner has not made a vague
averment regarding the employment of Ms. Anju Sahani. Even otherwise, it
has not been disputed that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents
if Ms. Anju Sahani is not made a party by the petitioner as her interest is
duly represented by her mother and brothers, i.e, respondents no. 2 to 4 in
the present petition. Further, it is a settled law as has been held in Mohd.
Usman Vs. Surayya Begum, 1990 (3) Delhi Lawyer 163 and in Kanji
Manji Vs. Trustees of Port of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 498 that :
"On the death of a tenant, the legal heirs inherits the tenancy rights as joint tenants and
not as tenants in common. In joint tenancy two or more tenants take identical interests
simultaneously with each other. The joint tenancy differ from tenancy in common. In joint
tenancy, incidents of tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by original tenant and if one
of the legal heir is not made a party, the other legal heirs who are joint tenants represents
the tenancy".
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
1