S N KAPOOR D Vs. BASANT LAL KHATRI
LAWS(SC)-2001-11-88
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
November 05,2001
S.N.KAPOOR
Appellant
VERSUS
BASANT LAL KHATRI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
EMC STEEL LIMITED CALCUTTA SMT SANTOSH SETHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]SURJIT SINGH KALRA MAHENDRA RAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA AND COLONEL ASHOKAPURI [REFERRED]
V RAJASWARI VS. BOMBAY TYRES INTL LIMITED [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
JOHN IMPEX PVT LTD VS. SURINDER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-13] [REFERRED TO]NARINDER KUMAR RASEEN VS. USHA AWASTHY [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-153] [REFERRED TO]
ANANT RAM JAIN VS. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-176] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA VS. VITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI DEVI VS. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-236] [REFERRED TO]
K S MUDDUGOWRAMMA VS. P SURYANARAYANA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHWAR BASHEER VS. VEENA MOHAN [LAWS(KAR)-2003-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU SINGH VS. NIRPATI BHUSAN HAZRA [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
ADARSH ELECTRICALS VS. DINESH DAYAL [LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-201] [REFERRED TO]
M/S.SRI SRINIVAS ENTERPRISES VS. SRI NARAYANDAS [LAWS(APH)-2013-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
MICHAEL ANTHONY WILLIAM GARETH VS. MARIA DO [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-113] [REFERRED TO IN THE CASE OF]
AMARJIT KAUR KOHLI VS. NEETA KAPOOR [LAWS(DLH)-2005-5-210] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHEY KUMAR AND ANR. VS. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-316] [REFERRED TO]
NAVNEET LAL VS. DEEPAK SAWHNEY [LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-107] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ZAFAR VS. ABDUL ARAFIN [LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-116] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA DEVI RATHOD VS. RAJ KUMARI [LAWS(ALL)-2007-12-99] [REFERRED TO]
S LACHMAN SINGH VS. S SATNAM SINGH [LAWS(APH)-2010-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS ENTERPRISES VS. NARAYANDAS [LAWS(APH)-2013-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SAVITRI DEVI VS. XTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-1-214] [REFERRED TO]
PARAS NATH BHAGWAN BIRAJMAN VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-329] [REFERRED TO]
RAM RATAN SINGH VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-329] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. RAJENDER KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-306] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR KULDEEP SINGH VS. LEARNED ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE COURT NO 4 SULTANPUR & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-378] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH AND ORS. VS. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-458] [REFERRED TO]
ADARSH ELECTRICALS & ORS. VS. DINESH DAYAL [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-488] [REFERRED TO]
RENU DEVI VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-3-210] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHP RAJ AND OTHERS. VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, MEERUT, AND OTHERS. [LAWS(ALL)-2009-9-266] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS ENTERPRISES,TARNAKA, SECUNDERABAD AND ANO VS. NARAYANDAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2013-3-105] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
Raju, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The Landlady is the appellant in the above appeals of which one arising out of the order dated 19-1-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court in C.M. No. 5154/99 in C.R. No. 513/98 rejecting the prayer for converting the application filed initially for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 into one under Section 14-D of the said Act and to consider the claim of the Landlady accordingly and the other arising out of the order dated 3-7-2000 made in Civil Revision No. 573/98 dismissing the main revision petition.
(3.)Late Shri S.N. Kapoor, the original owner of the premises at A-276, Defence Colony, New Delhi, was serving in the Indian Army and after his retirement he established his residence at Bhopal with his wife and 5 children in the year 1968. The premises in question at New Delhi was under tenancy. In 1982 the eldest son was said to have got married. Late Shri Kapoor and his wife began residing with their eldest son and daughter-in-law. After the Bhopal Gas Leak Accident, Late Shri Kapoor was also affected with serious opthalmic problems and he was undergoing treatment in All India Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi. In view of all the above, he called upon the respondents to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises for him to occupy by shifting his residence from Bhopal to New Delhi. Since the request was not complied with in 1986, Eviction Case No. E. 119/86 for eviction of the respondent No. 1 came to be instituted also for the reason that the relationship between Mrs. Kapoor and her daughter-in-law were getting strained and in the advance age of Mr. Kapoor he wanted to live in peace with his wife at Delhi. After getting leave to defend, the first respondent opposed the application contesting the bona fides of the landlord.
(2.)The Landlady is the appellant in the above appeals of which one arising out of the order dated 19-1-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court in C.M. No. 5154/99 in C.R. No. 513/98 rejecting the prayer for converting the application filed initially for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 into one under Section 14-D of the said Act and to consider the claim of the Landlady accordingly and the other arising out of the order dated 3-7-2000 made in Civil Revision No. 573/98 dismissing the main revision petition.
(3.)Late Shri S.N. Kapoor, the original owner of the premises at A-276, Defence Colony, New Delhi, was serving in the Indian Army and after his retirement he established his residence at Bhopal with his wife and 5 children in the year 1968. The premises in question at New Delhi was under tenancy. In 1982 the eldest son was said to have got married. Late Shri Kapoor and his wife began residing with their eldest son and daughter-in-law. After the Bhopal Gas Leak Accident, Late Shri Kapoor was also affected with serious opthalmic problems and he was undergoing treatment in All India Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi. In view of all the above, he called upon the respondents to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises for him to occupy by shifting his residence from Bhopal to New Delhi. Since the request was not complied with in 1986, Eviction Case No. E. 119/86 for eviction of the respondent No. 1 came to be instituted also for the reason that the relationship between Mrs. Kapoor and her daughter-in-law were getting strained and in the advance age of Mr. Kapoor he wanted to live in peace with his wife at Delhi. After getting leave to defend, the first respondent opposed the application contesting the bona fides of the landlord.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.