Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
17.2 In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta , 1999 (6)
SCC 222 it has been observed in para 14 as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
E No. 14/12 15 01.05.2014
11.1 In Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company
Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100, it was held that:
Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs vs Chaganlal Sundarji And Co on 13 October, 1999
13.1 Thus it is not necessary that a person should be
unemployed in order to show his bonafide or to first loose his
existing job or resign or reach the level of starvation. Petitioner has
placed on record the photocopy of the certificate issued by Manav
Rachna University that her son is about to retire on his age of
superannuation ie 2015. Thus the argument of Ld. counsel for
respondent is misconceived and untenable. Joblessness is not a
condition precedent for seeking to get back ones premises. There
is no denial of the fact that the litigation in courts do take some
time and this petition which was filed in 2012 has come up for
orders in 2014 and that too in summary proceedings. Further the
landlord does not has to prove that she has resources to start the
business. It is irrelevant consideration as the question of having
necessary fund to start the business is not at all necessary in view of
the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in plethora of
judgments.
Dattatraya Laxman Kamble vs Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde & Anr on 28 April, 1999
One such judgment is Dattaraya Laxman Kamble v.
Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde & Anr, 1999 (4) SCC 1.
Ram Babu Agarwal vs Jay Kishan Das on 7 October, 2009
In Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs
Jay Kishan Das 2009 (2) RCR 455 It was held that :
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008
(a) the premises in question were let out for residential
purpose or commercial purposes [as per the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of
India and another, 148 (2008) DLT 705 (SC),]
Mohd. Ayub & Anr vs Mukesh Chand on 5 January, 2012
In Mohd. Ayub & Anr. v. Mukesh Chand (2012) 2 SCC ,
155 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while placing reliance upon its
earlier judgments titled as Ganga Devi v. District Judge Nanital
and Ors, (2008) 7 SCC 770, Rish Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan,
(2007) 4 SCC 465, in para 13 and 14 of the judgment observed that :
Ganga Devi vs Distt. Judge, Nainital & Ors on 13 May, 2008
In Mohd. Ayub & Anr. v. Mukesh Chand (2012) 2 SCC ,
155 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while placing reliance upon its
earlier judgments titled as Ganga Devi v. District Judge Nanital
and Ors, (2008) 7 SCC 770, Rish Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan,
(2007) 4 SCC 465, in para 13 and 14 of the judgment observed that :
Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007
In Mohd. Ayub & Anr. v. Mukesh Chand (2012) 2 SCC ,
155 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while placing reliance upon its
earlier judgments titled as Ganga Devi v. District Judge Nanital
and Ors, (2008) 7 SCC 770, Rish Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan,
(2007) 4 SCC 465, in para 13 and 14 of the judgment observed that :