https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272734 The court reversed the lower courts' decrees, ruling that the landlord's failure to specifically plead the lack of other suitable accommodation under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was fatal to the eviction application. Additionally, the court clarified that mere occupation by the tenant's brother did not constitute parting with possession under Section 14(1)(b). As a result, the eviction application was dismissed with costs awarded throughout. en-us Wed, 21 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 May 2018 18:14:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272734 The court reversed the lower courts' decrees, ruling that the landlord's failure to specifically plead the lack of other suitable accommodation under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was fatal to the eviction application. Additionally, the court clarified that mere occupation by the tenant's brother did not constitute parting with possession under Section 14(1)(b). As a result, the eviction application was dismissed with costs awarded throughout. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272734