Avtar Singh Vs. Gurbux Singh

Avtar Singh vs Gurbux Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 06, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/685901

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/685901
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Vinender Jain, J.
Decided On: Aug 06, 1999
Case Number: CM(M) 605/97 & CMs 2131-32/97
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e)--Bonafide requirement--Sale of premises during pendency of eviction petition--Such sold premises not available to landlord as alternative accommodation--Court can take subsequent events into consideration--Order of eviction affirmed. - - One room is also required for...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Avtar Singh

Advocate Mr.R.N. Arora, Adv

Respondent

Gurbux Singh

Advocate Mr.R.K. Ahuja, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
Reported In: 1999VAD(Delhi)306; 81(1999)DLT346; 1999(51)DRJ65; 1999RLR571

Excerpt

delhi rent control act, 1958 - section 14(1)(e)--bonafide requirement--sale of premises during pendency of eviction petition--such sold premises not available to landlord as alternative accommodation--court can take subsequent events into consideration--order of eviction affirmed. - - one room is also required for the married daughter as well as for the guests......no.8977, naya mohalla, pul bangash, delhi was sold by the respondent by a registered sale deed. he has further contended that the size of the family of the respondent is not large so as to require any additional accommodation. 2. i have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties. 3. the argument of counsel for the petitioner that the property was sold during the pendency of the eviction petition, as a matter of fact, goes in favor of the respondent. the court can always take subsequent events into consideration and when according to the petitioner himself the property has been sold, that means that that property is not available to the respondent for a suitable alternative accommodation. no mala fide could be attributed on that account. i do not see any force in the argument of counsel for the petitioner that the accommodation available with the respondent is not sufficient. the respondent requires one room for himself. there are two daughters of the respondent whose age, at the time of filing of the petition, was 16 and 14 years. it is conteded by counsel for the petitioner that both the daughters are now married. however, the same statement is disputed by counsel for the respondent who says that only elder daughter has been married and regarding younger daughter he has no instructions about her marital status. even if it is presumed that one daughter is married, still another room is required for another daughter. one room is also required for the married daughter as well as for the guests. requirement of a drawing room for the respondent can not be termed as not bona fide. keeping in view that respondent has only three rooms the requirement can not be termed as mala fide. 4. no ground to interfere. 5. dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1.Learned counsel for the petitioner has cotended that the findings of the Additional Rent Controller are not based on correct appreciation of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and in his support has cited Precision Steel & Engineering Works and another Vs . Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal : [1983]1SCR498 . He has further contended that during the pendency of the eviction petition, the property No.8977, Naya Mohalla, Pul Bangash, Delhi was sold by the respondent by a registered Sale Deed. He has further contended that the size of the family of the respondent is not large so as to require any additional accommodation.

2. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties.

3. The argument of counsel for the petitioner that the property was sold during the pendency of the eviction petition, as a matter of fact, goes in favor of the respondent. The court can always take subsequent events into consideration and when according to the petitioner himself the property has been sold, that means that that property is not available to the respondent for a suitable alternative accommodation. No mala fide could be attributed on that account. I do not see any force in the argument of counsel for the petitioner that the accommodation available with the respondent is not sufficient. The respondent requires one room for himself. There are two daughters of the respondent whose age, at the time of filing of the petition, was 16 and 14 years. It is conteded by counsel for the petitioner that both the daughters are now married. However, the same statement is disputed by counsel for the respondent who says that only elder daughter has been married and regarding younger daughter he has no instructions about her marital status. Even if it is presumed that one daughter is married, still another room is required for another daughter. One room is also required for the married daughter as well as for the guests. Requirement of a drawing room for the respondent can not be termed as not bona fide. Keeping in view that respondent has only three rooms the requirement can not be termed as mala fide.

4. No ground to interfere.

5. Dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1999 Same Parties Avtar Singh vs Gurbux Singh Same Subject Property Same Judge Vinender Jain, J. Acts & Sections Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)

Property