Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs vs Chaganlal Sundarji And Co on 13 October, 1999

Jwala Pratap Singh (Shri) vs Shri R.D. Mathur on 15 October, 2003

In Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by LRs v. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. (27), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the requirement must be both reasonable and bonafide. The word reasonable connotes that the requirement is not fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire. The word requirement coupled with the word reasonable means that it must be something more, than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. A reasonable and bonafide requirement is something in between a mere desire or wish on one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity at the other hand.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Anandi Lal vs Smt. Sarju Devi And Ors. on 17 August, 2000

8. For this purpose I again went through the questions formulated at page 8 of the memo of appeal. Regarding question No. 2 the learned Counsel utterly failed to point out the courts below to have based their finding on any admission of the defendant. As such this question does not arise. Regarding questions No. 3 and 4 which relate to bonafide necessity and comparative hardship, notwithstanding constraints of Section 100, I heard the learned Counsel at length, and also went through the entire evidence of the parties, and find that these issues have also been rightly decided by the learned courts below, more particularly in view of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by L.Rs. v. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. 2000 (1) RCJ 161 and Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta . Regarding 5th question the learned Counsel contended that the learned lower Appellate Court has not mentioned the points arising for determination of the appeal, nor has decided the case issuewise, and therefore, the judgment is vitiated on account of non-compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. A bare perusal of the judgments of the learned courts below show that both the learned courts below have decided issue No. 2, 2A and 3 together being closely inter-related and before the learned lower Appellate Court also only challenge was to these issues and the same have been decided together. As such the point of determination before the learned court below precisely was about existence of reasonable and bonafide necessity and comparative hardship, and the same have been decided. As such this question also does, not arise.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - N P Gupta - Full Document

Mangi Lal vs Om Prakash on 7 October, 2004

The suggestion given by the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff-landlord may convert both the shops into one cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Raghunath G. Panhale's case (supra), as the landlord cannot be dictated in this manner to adjust himself to protect the long possession of the tenant. The other ground that the plaintiff's son Laxmi Kumar may establish his office as an advocate in the shop vacated by Bhim Shankar is also devoid of merit. It is significant to say here that this shop vacated by Bhim Shankar was offered and is still offered by the plaintiff-landlord to the tenant but this offer was declined on the ground that this is not suitable for the tenant. Then how it can be argued that this shop is suitable for the plaintiff- landlord. The submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Mandhana with reference to reply of application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. also do not carry any weight. During the pendency of the first appeal the appellant-defendant filed an application on 18.9.1993 with the averments that plaintiff's son Laxmi Kumar is doing his practice at Baran for about two years and he has established his office in a hall situated in his residential house and thus requirement of the suit shop to carry on cloth business no more exists. In reply to this application, it was averred that Laxmi Kumar became the member of Bar Association, Baran w.e.f. 2.11.1992 and it was denied that he has established his office in a hall. It was further averred that plaintiff's son Laxmi Kumar was doing no job, hence he continued his further studies and got himself enrolled as an advocate and is practicing as junior to Advocates Sh. Jagdish Prasad and Sh. Rajendra Prasad. It was also stated in additional para 5 of this reply that even for establishing his office as an advocate the suit shop is required. In additional para 10 of this reply it was specifically averred that on getting the vacant possession of the suit shop he will stop his practice and would start his cloth business. An undertaking to this effect was submitted before the First Appellate Court and this undertaking has been repeated by Mr. Ranjan in this Court. There was no reason not to rely upon this undertaking in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act which read as under :-
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1