Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Talat Parveen Naqvi vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr. on 23 October, 2009
10. The learned counsel for respondents also
vehemently argued that the petitioner did not prove will filed on
record and the source of ownership of the petitioner and in this
regard he relied on the cases of P.G. D'Ombrain and Others
etc. in AIR 1980 Gauhati 55, Sudhir Engg. vs. Nitco
Roadways in 1995 RLR 286, Ishwar Dass vs. Chaman
Prakash in RCR (1992) (2) 208 and Talat Parveen Naqvi vs.
DDA in 163 (2009) DLT 622.
Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987
In this regard reference can be had to the
decision of the Apex Court in "Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Ved
Prabha & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2028", wherein it was held that:
Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007
In the case of "Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi,
157 (2009) DLT 450" Hon'ble High Court of Delhi further
illustrated the concept of "owner" in following terms:
Mohd. Ayub & Anr vs Mukesh Chand on 5 January, 2012
18. Further reliance can be placed on the case of Mohd.
Ayub & Anr. vs. Mukesh Chand, Civil Appeal No. 4495 of
2006 decided on 5 January, 2012 by Hon. Supreme Court of
India wherein it was held that:
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. ... vs Union Of India on 30 August, 1974
30. It is further argued on behalf of respondents that in
the previous petition, the petitioner has claimed the premises in
question as residential whereas in the present petition it has been
claimed as commercial and thus it is claimed that there is no
bona fide requirement and the claims are contradictory. The said
argument is not at all relevant as the petitioner has been given a
specific right by Hon. Supreme Court of India in the case of
Saraswati vs. Union of India in 2008 to seek eviction of a
commercial premises on bona fide requirement. Thus this
argument is without any substance.
Sanjay Chug vs Opender Nath Ahuja & Anr. on 6 January, 2014
31. Counsel for respondent also relied on the case of
Keshav Metal Works & Anrs. vs. Jitender Kumar Verma in 53
(1994) DLT 685, Dr. (Mrs.) N.D. Khanna vs. M/s Hindustan
Industrial Corporation in AIR 1981 Delhi 305 and Sanjay
Chug vs. Opender Nath Ahuja in 207 (2014) DLT 271.
Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ishwar Dass Rajput vs Chaman Parkash Puri And Anr. on 11 January, 1992
10. The learned counsel for respondents also
vehemently argued that the petitioner did not prove will filed on
record and the source of ownership of the petitioner and in this
regard he relied on the cases of P.G. D'Ombrain and Others
etc. in AIR 1980 Gauhati 55, Sudhir Engg. vs. Nitco
Roadways in 1995 RLR 286, Ishwar Dass vs. Chaman
Prakash in RCR (1992) (2) 208 and Talat Parveen Naqvi vs.
DDA in 163 (2009) DLT 622.