Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Baij Nath vs Bhagat Singh And Anr. on 4 December, 1990
23. However, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
Baij Nath Vs. Bhagat Singh & Anr. 43 (1991) DLT 325 that, "Once it
is proved that the tenant has acquired another residence, that is enough.
It is not relevant whether the acquired property is suitable substitute for
the premises let for use as a residence."
Indian Cable Company Limited vs Prem Chandra Sharma on 5 May, 1989
Similar view has been taken in
T.N. Rai Vs. Rent Control Tribunal 67 (1997) DLT 308, Indian Cable
Co. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chander Sharma 1989 RLR 495. In view of law
laid by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid authority,
suitability of the accommodation acquired by the tenant is not to be
Eviction Petition No. 16/10 Page 14 of 17
considered.
Avinash Kaur vs Beli Ram on 23 September, 1970
24. The respondents in the written statement have also referred the
judgment in Avinash Kaur Vs. Beli Ram 1970 RCJ (995) in which it
was held that an act of acquisition of vacant possession or allotment of
residence to a person before he became a tenant would not attract clause
14 (1) (h) of DRC Act, as it cannot be said in a such case that the tenant
has acquired vacant possession or has been allotted a residence."
T.N. Rai vs Rent Control Tribunal on 14 March, 1997
Similar view has been taken in
T.N. Rai Vs. Rent Control Tribunal 67 (1997) DLT 308, Indian Cable
Co. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chander Sharma 1989 RLR 495. In view of law
laid by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid authority,
suitability of the accommodation acquired by the tenant is not to be
Eviction Petition No. 16/10 Page 14 of 17
considered.
1