Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Brij Mohan vs Sat Pal on 13 March, 1985
The room on the top floor being not used as living room nor fit to be a living room, hence non-mentioning of the same specifically, to my mind, did not amount to concealment of any material fact. Moreover, in the reply affidavit this fact was clearly mentioned. The measurement of the room on the top floor being less than 100 sq.ft., it cannot be called a living room. To be called a living room, the area must not be less than 100 sq.ft. as observed by this Court in the case of Brij Mohan v. Sri Pal Jain, . Non mentioning of such an accommodation which is not for living purpose could not have caused any prejudice nor would amount to concealment of facts.
Pt. Charanjit Lal Ram Sarup vs Lehri Singh Ram Narain on 20 May, 1958
This Court in the case of Rameshwar Sarup (D) L.R. v. Ram Narain, 1995 Rlr 189 observed that the tenant cannot be allowed to contend that concealment of fact was fatal, if the tenanted house was otherwise not suitable to the landlord. In that case grievance of the tenant was that the landlord did not make disclosure about the accommodation available to him at Subzi Mandi. The Rent Controller dismissed his petition on this ground holding that non disclosure was a malafide act. The landlord was in possession of an alternative accommodation at Subzi Mandi on the date of filing the petition was well as on the date of filing the replication. he still did not disclose this fact. The question for consideration was whether non-disclosure of that fact in the eviction petition and/or in the replication, the petition was liable to be dismissed. While answering the question this Court held that since the other accommodation was not suitable hence its non-disclosure was not malafide nor amounted to concealment.
Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996
In the case of Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar(Mrs.) v. Traders & Anr., Supreme Court reiterated that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live as he is the best Judge of his residential requirement. If the landlord desires to beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property occupied by him as a tenant or on any other basis, is either insecure or inconvenient it is not for the Courts to dictate to him to continue to occupy such premises. In this regard the landlord has also given undertaking to this Court by way of his affidavit filed in this Court that in case the premises is vacated by the present petitioner he would occupy the same and will not sell, re-let or part with possession of the same in any manner.
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
1