Skip to main content

‘Tenant can’t fix space usage’

No tenant can dictate usage of space to the house owner, a trial court has observed while ordering eviction of a tenant from the house of a 65-year-old handicapped widow in Nizamuddin.

Additional civil judge M P Singh's order came as a relief to Femida Begum who had sought the court's intervention for the eviction of her tenant, Mohammad Ahmed, so that one of her daughter could open a tailoring shop in the area occupied by Ahmed.

The court also held "there is no law that a woman, after marriage, is required to reside in her husband's house," adding that Femida's daughter might well prefer, in this case, to stay with her widowed and handicapped mother. The court made the observation while dismissing Ahmed's argument that daughter for which Femida was seeking eviction was of marriageable age and was soon likely to shift to her future husband's home.

The court also said that the tenant could not suggest ways in which his landlady might have used the house space.

Femida, who is 80 percent handicapped, owns a double-storey building in Nizamuddin and lives on the first floor with her two daughters and son Firoz. One of the woman's daughters, Farhana Khan, 28, is unmarried and unemployed.

Femida told the court that she would like Farhana to open a tailoring shop on the ground floor, occupied by Mohammad Ahmed, which would provide her employment and also offer the family a source of income.

There are two shop spaces on the ground floor of the building, one occupied by Ahmed and another serving as a guest room. Ahmed had been Femida's tenant since 1998, paying a monthly rent of Rs 1,000 excluding the cost of electricity and water. The court directed Ahmed to vacate Femida's house, saying she required her space.

"The tenant cannot suggest ways regarding the usage of her house. It is for her to determine how best she can make use of the available space," the court ruled, 'directing the tenant also to ensure that he did not make off with any of the woman's possessions.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Delhi/Tenant-cant-fix-space-usage/articleshow/27053238.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more