Must be or Must have

Only forms of be, not of have or any other verb, can occur in the existential There ... construction.

There must be a ...
There should be a ...
There will be a ...
There is a ...
There has been a ...
There was a ...
There could be a ...

CJ

Thanks!
Please let me confirm my understanding to your post.
There is a car = There must have a car.
Many Thanks in Advance

Vctory OngThere is a car = There must have a car.

No. There must have is ungrammatical. You can't use that.

CJ

I am so sorry!
I have made a typing error just now!
I mean,
There is a car= There must be a car.
Am I right?
Many Thanks in Advance

No, you didn't get it properly. As Jim said, there is no way to use any verb except for be in the construction with there.

There is/should be/can be a car.

If you are striving for using must and have you can say:

There must have been an accident. The shatters of glass are all over the place.

Thanks,

I have a last question about it.

He is so rich, so he must have a car.
If a person must own something we say must have
If a place must own something we say There must be
RIght?
Many Thanks in Advance

Am I right?

Vctory OngHe is so rich, so he must have a car.
If a person must own something we say must have
If a place must own something we say There must be
RIght?

Yes. I think you have the basic idea.

He is rich, so he must have a car.
The lights are on, so there must be someone inside.

They have many acres of land with many gar

He is so rich, he must be having a car.

If you don't know the reality then the above one is correct sentence.

If you say it as a compulsion then the sentence would be:

He is so rich, he must have a car.

bhavna vohrahe must be having a car

No. have is a non-progressive verb. It cannot be used in a progressive tense (with -ing). You need he must have a car.

CJ