Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.85 seconds)Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha & Ors. vs S.Harvinder Pal Singh & Ors. on 11 August, 2014
19. No doubt the petitioner has failed to prove the fact that
there are three doctors in working and around 200 patients visit on daily
basis to the homeopathy dispensary but from the evidence produced on
record and especially the admission of the respondent in the written
statement and the cross-examination, it came on record that there is a
dispensary in existence, a few doctors especially Doctor Thapa was
rendering his services in the past and a few patients (though the
number of patients are less) used to come. From the aforesaid facts, it
is evident that the aforesaid dispensary (homeopathy) is an organised
activity, maybe not of a large scale or maybe the number of doctors or
patients are less, but by that fact it cannot be said to be an unorganized
E. No. : 666/06 Page No. 12 of 20
Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha vs. S. Gurmeet Singh
foreign activity unconnected with the functions of Gurudwara. Thus I
hold that the said argument is without any force.
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Jagdish Chandra Lekha vs All India Blind Relief Society (Regd.) on 29 September, 2014
(v) The counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Jagdish
Chandra Lekha Vs. All India Blind Relief Society
(Regd.), C. M. (M) No. 900/2014 and C.M. No.
16352/2014 (stay) dated 29.09.2014 and argued that the
facts of the said case squarely apply to the present case in
which an eviction order was passed in similar
E. No. : 666/06 Page No. 9 of 20
Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha vs. S. Gurmeet Singh
circumstances. In that case, the facts are that the
respondent/ landlord was an All India Blind Relief Society, a
society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 and it filed a bona fide necessity eviction petition
under Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
against the petitioner/tenant pleading that it is running a
charitable hospital under the name of Model Eye Hospital
and it requires the tenanted premises for the purpose of
carrying on its various activities as there is a grave
shortage with the respondent/society for rooms for a
pathological lab, ENT Department, Ayurvedic Department,
waiting room etc. After considering the arguments, the
Court held, "the bare provision of Section 22 of the DRC
Act provides that if the landlord is a public institution and
the premises are required for the use of employees or for
the furtherance of the activities of the public institution then
notwithstanding the provision of Section 14, the landlord
may be placed in vacant possession by eviction of the
tenant. Further clause (d) of Section 22 provides that the
same can be done if the premises are required bona fide
by the public institution for the furtherance of its activities.
In the explanation clause, the provision clearly mentions
that public institution includes hospitals.
Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery And Co on 7 January, 2000
In
the judgment titled as "Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary
reported as AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 534", the Supreme Court
held that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his
requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got
complete freedom in the matter.
Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors vs Naveen Maheshwari on 18 November, 2009
In this regard, I also rely on the case of Uday Shankar
Upadhayay & Ors. vs. Naveen Maheshwari [(2010 1 SCC 503)]
wherein it was held as under:
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
1