RAMESH CHAND Vs. UGANTI DEVI
LAWS(DLH)-2008-11-19
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
November 03,2008
RAMESH CHAND
Appellant
VERSUS
UGANTI DEVI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
USHA P. KUVELKAR V. RAVNDRA SUBRAI DALVI [REFERRED TO]SHANTILAL THAKORDAS VS. CHIMANLAL MAGANLAL TELWALA [REFERRED TO]
SATYAWATI SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SHRI GURMAIL CHAND AND ANOTHER VS. SHRI YOG RAJ [LAWS(HPH)-2013-6-189] [REFERRED]KAMAL BHUSHAN BHATNAGAR VS. RAMWATI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-447] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM DASS VS. SHAKUNTLA BAKSHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-349] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY DUTT SHARMA VS. PRAHLAD RAI JALTHURIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. SHIV CHARAN [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-115] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM DASS VS. JAGMOHAN GOLA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-197] [REFERRED TO]
CONTINENTAL ADVERTISING PVT LTD VS. RAJ RANI AGGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KATARIA VS. BALDESH KUMAR KAUSHIK AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-96] [REFERRED TO]
HARMINDER SINGH KOGHAR VS. RAMNATH EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
LATE MOHD AHMED VS. LATE MAIRAJ AHMAD [LAWS(DLH)-2021-6-69] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH JAIN AND ORS. VS. QAZI SHAMIM AHMED AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK GUPTA VS. SUSHMA AGGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-315] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER @ RAJENDER KUMAR VS. RAJ BALA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-149] [REFERRED TO]
GAFFAR AHMAD VS. SHIV KUMAR OHRI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN KUMAR WADHVA VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-286] [REFERRED]
ASHOK SEHGAL VS. SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-2-130] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ MALIK VS. O P GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-567] [REFERRED]
B.K.PRADHAN VS. AVTAR KAUR [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-279] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN SHARMA VS. SMT. RAJ RANI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-435] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR ANAND VS. SUMAN BALA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-424] [REFERRED]
FAQIR CHAND @ FAQIRA VS. PADMA DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR AND SURESH KUMAR VS. MAHESH CHAND AND SONS. (HUF) [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-508] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. LT. COL. GURINDER SINGH (RETD.) & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-520] [REFERRED TO]
NISAR AHMED VS. AGYAPAL SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-248] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE SAINI VS. GAJ RAJ SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-159] [REFERRED TO]
SATNAM ANAND VS. GURBACHAN SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-263] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH JAIN VS. RAVI SEHGAL [LAWS(DLH)-2014-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
ARYA SAMAJ VS. SHAKUNTALA BAKSHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-259] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. SARDARI LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-316] [REFERRED TO]
JAI DEV AGGARWAL VS. VIJAY KUMAR ANGRISH [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-403] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJIT SINGH VS. RAVINDER KUMAR KANDH [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-436] [REFERRED TO]
RAJE LAL PERMESHWARI DASS VS. SHASHI SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-225] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR JAIN VS. S SHANMUGA SUNDARAM [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SAROOP VS. VINEY KUMAR MAHAJAN [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-208] [REFERRED TO]
BHUSHAN KUMAR JHANB VS. JWAHAR LAL TALWAR [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL VS. GULSHAN KUMAR ANAND [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SEWAK GUPTA VS. SUKHVIR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
JASWINDER SINGH VS. SURINDER KAUR [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-223] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH BANSAL VS. NEELAM GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA JAIN VS. PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA GUPTA VS. VIPIN KUMAR & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER KAUR VS. MAHESH CHAND [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-213] [REFERRED TO]
M.S.T. SHAHEEN AND ORS VS. FATIMA BEGUM [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-239] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH BHAGAT AND ORS. VS. NEENA AHUJA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-582] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV RAM VS. YOGESH MITTAL [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-307] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH KAUR VS. ASHA CHOPRA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-486] [REFERRED TO]
MEGH RAJ ROSHAN LAL VS. RASHMI JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-85] [REFERRED TO]
KANTA DEVI AND ORS. VS. JASWINDER WALIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-480] [REFERRED TO]
MAHTAB VS. ABDUL WAHID [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI NARAIN SHARMA VS. JAWAHAR GOEL [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-345] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN CHAND AGGARWAL VS. LEKH RAJ [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-186] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. NEELAMDAWAR [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 11th January 1993 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller allowed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord (respondent herein ).
(2.)THE eviction petition was filed by two persons namely Smt. Uganti Devi and Smt. Sheela Devi. The petitioner made both of them as respondents. During the pendency of the petition, one of the respondent Smt. Uganti Devi, respondent no. 2 died on 25th February 1994. The petitioner made no attempt to bring on record the legal representative of deceased respondent No. 2 and the petition was dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court restored this revision petition, however, an issue whether the Civil Revision as a whole would abate on death of smt. Uganti Devi for not bringing her Lrs on record was left open by the Hon"ble supreme Court while allowing the SLP of the petitioner. I consider that it would be appropriate to decide this petition on merits.
(3.)THE two landladies had filed an eviction petition contending therein that they were the owners of the premises. Smt. Uganti Devi, the co-owner and her dependent family members had no other reasonable and suitable residential accommodation. Her family included herself, her husband; her unmarried daughter aged about 18 years, 3 unmarried sons, and one married son and his wife and mother-in-law who were living along with her. She along with her family members was staying with her brother in law Shri Narayan in one room divided into three portions with the help of wooden partitions in the factory premises situated at 8744, Gali No. 14b, Karol Bagh and her brother in law and his wife were per force also residing in one room partitioned with the help of wooden ply in the same manner and he required the premises for his own use and had asked the petitioner no. 1 and her family members to vacate the premises. They had no other suitable residential accommodation except the premises in question. She also contended that besides her family members, she had five brothers-in-law and daughters-in-law apart from brothers and sisters and all of them used to visit her on and off and she required guest rooms for the purpose. There was a persistent demand from her brother-in-law to vacate the premises. Hence, the eviction petition.
(2.)THE eviction petition was filed by two persons namely Smt. Uganti Devi and Smt. Sheela Devi. The petitioner made both of them as respondents. During the pendency of the petition, one of the respondent Smt. Uganti Devi, respondent no. 2 died on 25th February 1994. The petitioner made no attempt to bring on record the legal representative of deceased respondent No. 2 and the petition was dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court restored this revision petition, however, an issue whether the Civil Revision as a whole would abate on death of smt. Uganti Devi for not bringing her Lrs on record was left open by the Hon"ble supreme Court while allowing the SLP of the petitioner. I consider that it would be appropriate to decide this petition on merits.
(3.)THE two landladies had filed an eviction petition contending therein that they were the owners of the premises. Smt. Uganti Devi, the co-owner and her dependent family members had no other reasonable and suitable residential accommodation. Her family included herself, her husband; her unmarried daughter aged about 18 years, 3 unmarried sons, and one married son and his wife and mother-in-law who were living along with her. She along with her family members was staying with her brother in law Shri Narayan in one room divided into three portions with the help of wooden partitions in the factory premises situated at 8744, Gali No. 14b, Karol Bagh and her brother in law and his wife were per force also residing in one room partitioned with the help of wooden ply in the same manner and he required the premises for his own use and had asked the petitioner no. 1 and her family members to vacate the premises. They had no other suitable residential accommodation except the premises in question. She also contended that besides her family members, she had five brothers-in-law and daughters-in-law apart from brothers and sisters and all of them used to visit her on and off and she required guest rooms for the purpose. There was a persistent demand from her brother-in-law to vacate the premises. Hence, the eviction petition.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.