Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Hiralal Kapur vs Prabhu Choudhury on 19 February, 1988
(24) The next point, which arises for consideration is, that the petitioner no.2 was doing his own consultancy service at the time the impugned order was passed and he required some room for office for his study and library and he was using one room for study. The Additional Rent Controller, however, has drawn the conclusion that the bed room was deliberately described as study room with a view to put up pretence of scarcity of accommodation. He further concluded that the petitioner no.2 has no regular and large size library and secondly that he has been using the drawing room for purpose of study. The bed room does not become study room merely because petitioner no.2 found it more convenient to call it by that name. This finding is against the settled law that if, a lawyer or a professional having his office wants to shift the same to his residence, then for eviction under Section 14, requirement for office would be requirement for residence. All professional men may require office in their residence and it cannot be argued that the drawing room can be used for the purpose of the study (Hiralal Kapur v. Prabhu Choudhry 1988 R.L.R. (SC)211) The last question, which arises for consideration is about the powers of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction to interfere in the matters of this kind.
Darshan Garg vs Sri Kishan Das on 22 July, 1988
(15) In Smt Darshan Garg v. Sri Kishan Das 1988 (2) Rcr 591, the question of need of married daughters, visiting the parents, was again considered and it was held that the word "himself' appearing in Section 14 would not mean that only the physical need of residence of the landlord is to be taken note of. After all a human being is not only a physical being but is also an emotional and social being. It is the need of the landlord himself that contemplates taking into consideration the need of the financially dependent on the landlord. Similarly it is the emotional needs of the landlord that necessitate the visits of married daughters to his house often and keeping in view the way of living of our society, it also clear that such married daughters stay with their parents quite for some time every year. So, as a broad proposition of law it cannot be stated that need of married daughter cannot be at all taken into consideration while assessing the need of the landlord for more accommodation.
Hari Shankar vs Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury on 5 December, 1961
(16) The learned counsel for respondent Mr. Jaitley, has argued on the other hand that the revisional Court, in exercise of its powers, cannot examine a mere question of fact. The Additional Rent Controller has considered this question and there is no mis-carriage of justice due to mistake of law and no interference is, therefore, called for. He has sought reliance from the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Act, which clearly states that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself, that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. The present case, he argues, is not covered by this proviso and no relief can be granted to the petitioners. He has placed reliance on the judgments as reported in Hari Shankar and others v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury ; Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel & ors. (1974) 4 S.C.R. 267.
Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs Chandrakant M. Patel & Ors on 4 February, 1974
(16) The learned counsel for respondent Mr. Jaitley, has argued on the other hand that the revisional Court, in exercise of its powers, cannot examine a mere question of fact. The Additional Rent Controller has considered this question and there is no mis-carriage of justice due to mistake of law and no interference is, therefore, called for. He has sought reliance from the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Act, which clearly states that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself, that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. The present case, he argues, is not covered by this proviso and no relief can be granted to the petitioners. He has placed reliance on the judgments as reported in Hari Shankar and others v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury ; Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel & ors. (1974) 4 S.C.R. 267.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ram Dass vs Ishwar Chander And Others on 9 May, 1988
(8) In Ram Dass V. Ishwar Chander and others 1988 (1) Rcr 625. the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the powers of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction and held that such jurisdiction enables the court of Revision in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of factalso, though the Revisional Court is not a second Court of first appeal. In appropriate cases the High Court can reappraise the evidence, if the findings are found to be infirm in law. The Court further came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived on good faith and that, the Court must also, consider reasonable to gratify that need. The landlord's desire for possession, however, honest it, might otherwise be has inevitably a subjective element in it and for that desire to become a requirement in law it must have the objective element of "need". It must also be such that the Court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the Court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration, so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant, is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down.
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Sat Pal vs Nand Kishore And Anr. on 3 September, 1982
(22) The perusal of this paragraph clearly indicates that petitioner no. 1 has four married daughters and another daughter of petitioner No.1 died in October, 1971, leaving behind a son.aged about 13 years. The daughters of petitioner no. l and sons-in-law and grand sons and daughters often visit petitioners, according to Hindu custom and they stay with them. The additional Rent Controller has clearly fallen into an error to comment adversely that the plea of family get-together was no-where found in the petition whereas, the grounds in the petition indicate otherwise. This obviously has resulted in miscarriage of justice and the Court had no jurisdiction to hold that the said plea was nowhere found in the petition. The question of the need for married daughters and their families has been considered by this Court in number of cases. The consensus has been that such need obviously has a bearing on the requirement of the landlord and simply cannot be brushed aside on the ground that they cease to be members of the family. The learned judges in the case of Sat Pal (supra), and Shri I.D.Rajput (supra) did not lay down the proposition that at no cost such a need can be considered to determine the bona fide requirement of the landlord and these cases were decided on their own facts. The Additional Rent Controller has rejected the contention that the accommodation is insufficient as the petitioner no. 2 has four sisters, who visit and stay with them along with their families and a son of the deceased sister also has to be taken care of. The plea has been turned down on the ground that the tenant cannot be turned out permanently for transitory trips of sons and daughters of the landlord. This finding cannot be sustained, as the law is well settled that the married daughters along with their families often come and stay with their parents for sometime in the year and it cannot be held that the need of such family members cannot at all be taken into consideration for assessing the bonafide requirement for the landlord. The family members of this category are not expected to be huddled together with other members of the family, who permanently reside in the premises and they have to be provided an appropriate accommodation and this plea has been wrongly brushed aside by the Additional Rent Controller only on the ground that the plea of a family get-together is no where found in the petition which is incorrect. The married daughters even though they may not be member of the landlord ' s family any longer, the requirement of such married daughters can be taken into account in assessing the requirement of the landlord himself. (S.Kumar v. 0m Prakash Sharma 1980 (1) R.C.J. 36). I am inclined to hold that some additional accommodation is certainly required by the petitioners on this ground. I have also assessed the need of the petitioners on other grounds and the requirement cannot be termed anything but bonafide.