Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 94 (2.11 seconds)
Documents citing Atma S. Berar vs Mukhtiar Singh on 12 December, 2002

M/S. Indian Scientific Glass ... vs M.K. Mahipalsingh on 22 January, 2018

In Atma S.Berar vs Mukhtiar Singh (supra) the Supreme Court referring to the decision in Prativa Devi vs T.V.Krishnan held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter and it is of no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

(O&M;) M/S Oberoi Timber Traders vs Narbir Singh Etc on 31 August, 2018

In this regard, referred to various judgments on similar lines, which I need not to cite in order to avoid repetition but would like to refer to case law in Atma S. Berar Vs. Mukhtiar Singh (2003) 2 SCC 3; 2003(1) RCR (Rent) 42 where the landlord had offered to sell his house to the tenant but thereafter, changed his mind to shift to India as he was living in Canada, the need was held to be bona fide, thus, urges this Court for upholding the findings and dismissing the revision petitions.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A Rawal - Full Document

Kawaljeet Kaur Gandhi Anr vs Satbir Singh Bindra on 19 September, 2023

32. Similarly, in the case of Atma S. Berar Vs. Mukhtiar Singh, Appeal (civil) no. 2898 of 2000 decided on 12.12.2002, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the landlord living in Canada for a number of years and having several kith and kin there wanted to shift with his wife in their old age to their own house in India to spend the last years peacefully in his motherland, his need is bonafide, genuine and reasonable. Merely because he had negotiated for sale of house to the tenant at some time, which fact he admitted and explained, does not show to the contrary.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Mohit Arora vs Pnb Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors on 29 April, 2026

11. It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has recorded a finding of fraud on the basis of the material found in the IFCI's petition i.e. CP (IB) No. 428/2021 which was pending before another Bench and this material was never put to the appellant and was considered when the judgment was reserved resulted in the violation of Principles of Natural Justice and illegality has also been committed by taking judicial notice of certain facts under Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act contrary to the established law. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Atma S. Berar vs. Mukhtiar Singh (2003) Vol 2 SCC 3 and SBI & Ors. vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 1.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shobha Ram vs Sham Lal on 23 March, 2012

Similarly, in Atma S. Berar Vs. Mukhtiar Singh AIR 2003 SC 624 it was held that the landlord is the best judge of the premises and has complete freedom regarding how he is to use his premises and it is not for the tenant CR No.1853 of 2012 10 or for the Courts to hold whether the requirement is not appropriate and he continues functioning in the premises in question. The relevant observations reads as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Gurdial Singh And Another vs Leela Malhotra And Others on 7 October, 2013

8. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the decision in Rajinder Singh Nanda's case (supra) is based on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sant Ram Das's case (Supra) and that of the Supreme Court in Attar Singh's case (supra) wherein it was not in controversy whether the ingredients of Sub-clauses (b) and (c) are required to be pleaded or not. It is true that in both these cases Singh Gurbax 2014.01.28 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.252 of 2007 14 it was not specifically in controversy whether the ingredients of Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) are essential to be pleaded by the landlord or not, but it was clearly and expressly held therein that it was essential to prove the ingredients of Sub clauses (b) and (c). Once it is so held, there is no escape from the proposition of law that these ingredients have to be pleaded before any evidence is led on the same.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Ram Kishan Dass vs Parveen Gulati And Ors on 14 January, 2015

Similarly, reference can be made to Atma S.Berar Vs. Mukhtiar Singh (2003) 2 SCC 3 and Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999 (6) SCC 222. In the later case, the Apex Court examined the concept of bona fide requirement of the landlord and held that the Courts do not thrust their own wisdom on the choice of the landlord. The requirement of the landlord who was a doctor was for his son who was a practising doctor. The Apex Court held that the stance of the tenant that the family should shift to another house owned by them 7-8 kilometers away was not justified and neither could the law compel the landlord to shift to a different house in a different locality so as to permit the tenant to live in the tenanted premises. If the landlord wished to live in the comfort of his own house, he could not be required to squeeze himself and protect the tenant's occupancy. Relevant observation reads as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next