Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Janki Nath Sahni – Appellant
Versus
Ram Mohan Seth (Deceased) Thr Lrs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Appellant impugns judgment dated 06.01.2018, whereby the eviction petition filed by the appellant under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, has been dismissed.
2. Appellants had filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of respondent-Ram Mohan Seth (since expired) and now represented by his legal heirs from one shop measuring 61/2 feet x 10 feet in Ward No.3, property bearing No.3145-47 and 3148 (half) and 3153 (new) on the ground floor of the said property, more particularly, described as shop in property bearing No.3146, Ground Floor, Ward No.3, Ram Bazar, Mori Gate, Delhi, shown in red colour in the site plan, Ex.PW-1/RX3. The subject shop is the shop in centre of the property on the front side.
3. Eviction petition was filed contending that the property is owned by the petitioners, who are brothers and landlords of the subject premises. Petitioner No.2, Ashok Kumar Sahni had contended that he has two sons, Jatin Sahni and Kapil Sahni. Both the sons are married. Elder son, Sh. Jatin Sahni was carrying on business of clothes at Gandhi Nagar and is settled and looking after his family from the business carried o
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act to justify the eviction of the respondent based on the bona fide need of the....
A petitioner in eviction proceedings may withdraw their petition by undertaking to vacate and meet financial obligations, acceptable to the court and the opposing party.
The moral duty of the father to settle his son well and the absence of other commercial property justified the eviction.
The Court emphasized the importance of providing evidence to support claims and the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Tenants cannot dictate accommodation terms and landlord's bona fide need for property prevails unless substantive evidence disproves dependency.
A landlord’s failure to fully account for existing alternative suitable accommodations constitutes a triable issue, entitling a tenant to leave to defend under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Tenant's failure to tender rent with statutory interest and prove defense against subletting justifies eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
