Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 365 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing Hasmat Rai & Anr vs Raghunath Prasad on 28 April, 1981

Heirs Of Babubhai H. Kanada vs Natwarlal Chandarana on 4 September, 2002

[1] In Hasmat Rai and another Vs. Raghunath Prasad, reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 1711 wherein it has been held that where possession is sought for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action but must subsist till the final decree or an order for eviction is made. If in the meantime events have cropped up which would show that the landlord's requirement is wholly satisfied then in that case his action must fail and in such a situation it is incorrect to say that as decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the Court to take into consideration subsequent events. The landlord's need must be shown to continue to exist at appellate stage.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

A.N. Srinivasa Thevar vs Sundarambal Alias Prema, W/O. ... on 18 April, 1995

Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner/tenant that there was not enough and specific pleading to support the oral evidence cannot be upheld. The various decisions cited by me in this regard and the oral evidence adduced on the side of the landlady/respondent are in my opinion in conformity with and supportive of the pleadings in each and every respect. This Court exercising powers of revision under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act cannot be called upon by the revision petitioner/tenant to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at a different conclusion as against the concurrent findings of both the authorities below. I am therefore, of the view that this is not a fit case, where this Court is called upon to exercise the revisional power and interfere with the concurrent findings of both the authorities below in the present revision. In my opinion no error much less a material error or commission of impropriety has been established against the verdicts of the courts below for the revision petitioner to interfere with the verdicts of the courts below. The decision relied on by learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad cannot be applied to the facts of this case. That was a case under Section 12(1)(e) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The facts and circumstances of the said case are totally so different and the principles laid down in that case cannot be imported to the present facts of the case. Similarly, the relevant provisions of law considered in that case also cannot be compared with Section 14 (1)(b) of Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In the present case, there are enough and sufficient pleadings and the evidence based thereon on the side of the landlady/respondent and the very admissions made by the revision petitioner/tenant are sufficient enough to disclose the condition of the building in question and all other germane factors which are necessary to decide the case on merits.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Mani vs K.S.Santhana Krishnan on 21 November, 2007

"Turning now to the subsequent event in this case, it is not a subsequent event at all because, as I observed above, two simultaneous applications were filed. It a tenant in his wisdom chooses not to contest after being evicted by the Rent Controller and allows the order to become final by execution of which the landlord obtained possession, it passes my comprehension to see as to how this could be characterised as a subsequent event. Only such of those events totally unrelated to the proceedings for eviction if it takes place, which have a bearing on the maintainability of the petition, then of course it will be a different mater. But, that is not the position here, in view of the landlord coming forward with a claim that he requires both the portions in occupation of two different tenants. Construed inthis light, there is no difficulty in reconciling the rulling of the Supreme Court in Hasmat Rai Vs. Raghunath Prasad (1981)3 SCC 103"
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A C Adityan - Full Document

Shaji Joseph vs Ponnamma Varghese on 11 January, 2022

'2. Equally it is settled by this Court in series of judgments and a reference in this behalf would be sufficient by citing Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad [(1981) 3 SCC 103] that in a case of bona fide requirement, it is always necessary, till the decree of eviction is passed that the landlord should satisfy that the need is bona fide and the need subsists. In a case where the need is available at the time of filing of the petition, but at the time of granting decree it may not continue to subsist, in that event, the decree for eviction could not be made. Similarly pending appeal or revision or writ petition, the need may become more acute.
Kerala High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

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

27. The decision in Hasmat Rai and another vs Raghunath Prasad (supra) would also not assist the petitioner. This was a case where the landlord had acquired the possession from the tenant firm of adjacent accommodation which was reasonable and suitable for a business which the landlord wanted to start and for which the decree of eviction against the tenant was claimed. It was held that since the landlord had acquired vacant possession of a major portion of the building in ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:34 ::: psv 38 wp 5865-98.doc which he can start his business of Chemists and Druggists, he would not be entitled for another space under section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next