Resham Singh Vs. S.P. Gupta

Resham Singh vs S.P. Gupta

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 09, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/687232

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/687232
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Vijender Jain, J.
Decided On: Aug 09, 1999
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 659/99
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

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

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)--Institution of proceedings--Authority of person filing eviction petition--Power of attorney filed subsequently by owner/landlord in favor of his father who had instituted the eviction petition ratify the institution of eviction petition.; Section 14(1)(e)--Bonafide requi...

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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Resham Singh

Advocate Mr.R.K. Sharma, Adv

Respondent

S.P. Gupta

Advocate Mr.J.C. Mahindroo, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
Reported In: 1999VAD(Delhi)356; 81(1999)DLT280; 1999(51)DRJ64; 1999RLR568

Excerpt

delhi rent control act, 1958 - section 14(1)--institution of proceedings--authority of person filing eviction petition--power of attorney filed subsequently by owner/landlord in favor of his father who had instituted the eviction petition ratify the institution of eviction petition.; section 14(1)(e)--bonafide requirement--owner/landlord seeking eviction for the benefit of his father--owner/landlord and his family residing at bombay over 18 years--father of owner residing in tenanted accommodation already gave undertaking to vacate--eviction affirmed. - - rent controller has clearly mentioned in the order that the subsequent power of attorney which was filed and duly registered has ratified the institution of the previous eviction petition.ordervijender jain, j.1.learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the power of attorney subsequently filed by the father of the owner/landlord did not incorporate that the original petition which was filed had the authority by the son to institute the eviction petition. 2. learned addl. rent controller has clearly mentioned in the order that the subsequent power of attorney which was filed and duly registered has ratified the institution of the previous eviction petition. 3. i do not find any infirmity with the order of the addl. rent controller as the relationship of owner or the purpose of letting has not been denied by the petitioner. 4. the next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the son who is the landlord of the property in question does not require the property as he was residing in the bombay with his family for the last 18 years and the requirement of the father cannot be considered as a requirement of a family member. 5. i do not find any force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. admittedly the father is residing in a tenanted accommodation and he has given the undertaking before the concerned court to vacate that tenanted premises on or before 30th september, 1999. a father can legitimately expect his son to provide residence to him. thereforee, i hold that a father who is dependent for residence on his son, he is a member of the family and for his requirement, a son can maintain a petition for eviction. no ground to interfere. 6. dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the power of attorney subsequently filed by the father of the owner/landlord did not incorporate that the original petition which was filed had the authority by the son to institute the eviction petition.

2. Learned Addl. Rent Controller has clearly mentioned in the order that the subsequent power of attorney which was filed and duly registered has ratified the institution of the previous eviction petition.

3. I do not find any infirmity with the order of the Addl. Rent Controller as the relationship of owner or the purpose of letting has not been denied by the petitioner.

4. The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the son who is the landlord of the property in question does not require the property as he was residing in the Bombay with his family for the last 18 years and the requirement of the father cannot be considered as a requirement of a family member.

5. I do not find any force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the father is residing in a tenanted accommodation and he has given the undertaking before the concerned Court to Vacate that tenanted premises on or before 30th September, 1999. A father can legitimately expect his son to provide residence to him. thereforee, I hold that a father who is dependent for residence on his son, he is a member of the family and for his requirement, a son can maintain a petition for eviction. No ground to interfere.

6. Dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1999 Same Parties Resham Singh vs S.P. Gupta Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Vijender Jain, J. Acts & Sections Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)

Tenancy