Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.25 seconds)

Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 October, 2020

14. It was further submitted that the petitioner does not have an unconditional right of residence in the shared household. Respondent No. 7, who is the son of respondent No. 6, has already taken a house on rent to accommodate the petitioner. She had given her consent to move into the said house but has subsequently declined to shift. Respondent no. 7 has further offered to take any other house on rent which the petitioner desires, but she is insistent on residing in the disputed premises where she does not have any right of residence. He further placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja, 2021 (1) SCC 414 to buttress his submission that right of residence of the petitioner in the disputed house, as per section 17 of the act of 2005 is not a indefeasible right, and under the circumstances as occurring in the present case, the respondent No. 6 could legally and validly enforce an order for eviction as per the provisions of act of 2007.
Supreme Court of India Cites 132 - Cited by 199 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next