Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.36 seconds)Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007
26. In the present case, the respondent has not filed any document on
record to show that son or the family members of the petitioner are owners of
various properties. Even the respondent has not given any specific number of
alleged various properties. Therefore, placing reliance upon "Ramesh Chand
Vs. Uganti Devi (Supra)", I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has
been able to establish that he does not have any other suitable alternative
E36/2012 Page 11/20
accommodation in Delhi except the tenanted premises.
Bonafide Requirement
Prahlad Rai Mittal vs Smt. Rita Devi on 21 December, 2012
The authority relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the respondent i.e.
E36/2012 Page 19/20
Prahlad Rai Mittal Vs. Smt. Rita Devi (Supra) is also not applicable to the
facts of the present case as in that authority the tenant had given a detailed list
of properties with specific numbers held by the owner/landlord and in the
present case the respondent has not given even the property number of the
various properties owned by the son of the petitioner or his family members.
R.K. Bhatnagar vs Sushila Bhargava And Anr. on 18 February, 1986
32. Now, I shall examine whether additional requirement of the
petitioner qua the tenanted premises is bonafide or not. The respondent has not
disputed the family size of the petitioner. As per site plan of the property no.
4787/23, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, there are two bed rooms (10' X
17'2''), one drawingcumdining room (10' X 23') for the purposes of residence
i.e. habitable living room, a small lobby, kitchen, toilet, open terrace with two
small stores. If the test of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord
is applied to the aforesaid accommodation as compared even the basic
requirement of the landlord for himself and for his family members, there is no
doubt in my mind that the landlord suffers from paucity of accommodation.
Being guided by the aforesaid authorities, the requirement of one room for the
petitioner and his wife, one room for his son and his wife, one room for
granddaughter of the petitioner, one room for grandson of the petitioner, one
drawingcumdining room cannot be said a mere wish or desire. At present, the
petitioner is having only two bedrooms and one drawingcumdining room and
as such the additional requirement of the petitioner is bonafide and genuine
requirement keeping in view the size of rooms available with the petitioner as
depicted in the site plan filed by the petitioner. I also reject the contention of
the respondent that granddaughter is not dependent upon him for residence
purposes placing reliance upon R.K. Bhatnagar V. Sushila Bhargav (Supra).
Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Precision Steel And Engineering Works ... vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal on 7 October, 1982
In Precision Metal & Engg. Works Vs. Prema Deva, Niranjan
Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518, it has been held that "while deciding the
application for leave to contest, the controller has to confine himself to the
affidavit filed by the tenant under Sub Section (4) and the reply if any. On
perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by the
landlord, the controller has to pose to himself the only question, "Does the
affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from
obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in
clause of the proviso to Section 14 (1)?". The controller is not to record a
finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits
against the other set of affidavits."
Rita Lal vs Raj Kumar Singh on 13 September, 2002
In (2002) 7 SCC 614 titled as Rita Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
"If the Court is satisfied that though in the pleadings an issue is
raised but that is not a triable issue then the Court is justified in refusing the
leave to defend. A defence, which is practically moonshine, sham or illusory
can not be held to be raising a triable issue. Else the whole purpose behind
enacting a provision for granting leave to defend, and not permitting a contest
unless leave was granted, would stand defeated."
Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987
In Shanti Sharma Vs. Ved Prabha AJR 1987 SC 2028, it has been
held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that for the purpose of Section 14 (1) (e) of
DRC Act, "Ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only
as a title better than the tenant".
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008
23. The purpose of letting has become redundant as in Satyawati
Sharma Vs. Union of India 148 (2008) DLT 705 Supreme Court, it has been
held that the premises let out either for residential or for commercial purposes
can be got vacated by the landlord for bonafide requirements.
Nonavailability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in
Delhi.
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta VI (1999) SLT
163 = (1999) 6 SCC 222 wherein, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that :
"12. A perusal of Section 14 of the Act shows that the law has
imposed restrictions on the recovery of possession, of any premises
by landlord from a tenant notwithstanding any law or contract to
the contrary. However, an order for recovery of possession is
permissible on one or more of the specified ground. One such
ground is the premises let for residential purposes being required
bonafide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or
for any member of his family dependent on him. What is a bonafide
requirement is not defined in the Act. The words 'need' and
'require' both denote a certain degree of want with a thrust within
demanding fulfilment. 'Need' or 'requirement' qualified by word
'bonafide' or 'genuine' preceding as an adjectiveis an expression
often used in Rent Control Laws. 'Bonafide or genuine need' of the
landlord or that the landlord 'genuinely requires' or "requires
bonafide" an accommodation for occupation by or use for himself
is an accepted ground for eviction and such expression is often
employed by Rent Control legislation draftsman. The two
expressions are interchangeable in practice and carry the same
meaning."