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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more