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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more