Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is silent about any requirement of the landlord giving the details/ divulging anything qua the nature/ purpose/ disclosure of the proposed new business by the landlord.”
“The landlord had a right to put his property for better use and to obtain a higher income. He had a right to choose the place for the business which was most suitable to him”
The issues that have been set up in defence by the respondent are such that it will not be possible for him to succeed even if these are entertained, so far as concerns the recovery of possession of the subject premises. No useful purpose will thus be served if the matter goes to trial on the prayer for recovery of possession.
The Court highlighted the egregious misuse of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and observed that there are huge number of cases, where very well-off tenants enjoying financial prosperity, unjustly occupy premises for decades on-end, paying pittance for rent. While in the process, their landlords are forced into impecunious and desperate circumstances.
The true test for assessing the impact of subsequent events on the landlord’s bona fide need is whether those events completely eclipse the landlord’s need. If not, the Court can proceed with the general rule that the situation at the commencement of the litigation governs the decision.
The very word senior citizens should not refer to only the age beyond 60 years but should invite everyone’s attention to the literal meaning of “senior” also, which as per Oxford dictionary refers to the word “senior” as “equivalent to having a high or higher position in a company, organization, etc. and thus, in the society qua the younger generation.
The Supreme Court said that before examining the defendants’ ground of res judicata to oppose the eviction petition, several aspects may have to be looked into, like whether such an issue was substantively at issue in the previous suit and similar such other questions may crop up.