Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Vijay Singh Etc. Etc vs Vijayalakshmi Ammal on 10 October, 1996

Sh. Raj Bansal vs Smt. Savinder Kaur on 4 August, 2020

However, the Constitution Bench decision in Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal [(1996) 6 SCC 475] watered down the effect of holding of this Court in P. Orr and Sons [(1991) 1 SCC 301] and held that the age and con- dition of the building was only one of the relevant fac- tors, and certainly not the sole determinative factor, for testing the bona fides of the landlord. The Constitution Bench held that the bona fides of requirement for demo- lition could be found out by taking into account (i) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants, (ii) the age and condition of the building, and (iii) the financial position of the land- lord to demolish and erect a new building. However, the Constitution Bench added that these were only some of RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 19 of 22 the illustrative factors to be taken into consideration be- fore an order is passed under Section 14(1)(b). In R.V.E. Venkat- achala Gounder [(2002) 4 SCC 437 : JT (2002) 3 SC 591] this Court has held that apart from the age and condition of the building the capacity of the landlord to demolish and reconstruct, the useful utilization of the property which would on demolition and reconstruction make available more space to be occupied by human beings for residen- tial/non-residential purposes and the genuine desire of the landlord to earn economic advantage are relevant factors pointing to the bona fides of the requirement. In the present case it has been found that the building is an old construction requiring demolition and reconstruction. Out of the total area of the property, only a part is built up and substantial portion is lying open and vacant. There is pressure of popula- tion on the developing city and several multi-storey com- plexes have come up in the vicinity of the property. There is nothing to cast a shadow of doubt on the bona fides of the landlords pleading an immediate need for demolition followed by reconstruction".
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mitthu Lal vs Kundan Lal on 8 July, 1997

In the matter of Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1996) 6 SCC 475 : (AIR 1997 SC 47) in an eviction petition filed by the landlords against the tenants on the ground of demolition and re-construction of the building under Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, the tenant had challenged the bona fide requirement of the landlords regarding demolition and re-construction of the suit premises on the ground that the sole object of the same was to get rid of the tenant. Since the building in question was old one and was situated in a very busy locality of the town, the respondents wanted to demolish the mtire building in order to reconstruct a new shopping complex for which necessary permission from the municipal authorities had already been obtained and an undertaking had also been given by the respondents that they shall commence the work of demolition and reconstruction within one month and the work shall be complied within the stipulated period of three months subsequently. The Rent Controller taking in view the totality of the circumstances, directed the eviction of the tenant-appellants Under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, The said order was upheld by the High Court. In appeal preferred before the Apex Court against the impugned order of High Court the Apex Court declined to interfere in the mutter on the ground that all the relevant factors have been taken into consideration by the Rent Controller and also by the High Court und hence there was no scope for any interference by the Apex Court. It was further observed that no Court can fix any time limit with regard to the age and condition of the building which has to be taken into consideration along with other relevant factors und thereafter a conclusion can be arrived at by the Rent Controller.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shakeelulr Rahman vs Syed Mehdi Ispahani on 29 November, 2002

But in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in Vijay Singh's case (supra), though age and condition of the building sought to be demolished are relevant factors to test bona fides of the landlord, they are not determinative of the issue. Though we do not approve the High Court's approach in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact, yet we do not consider it necessary or just to interfere with the order under challenge, as on the other concurrent findings of facts recorded by the lower authorities, referred to above, a finding of bona fide requirement of the landlord has been recorded by the High Court which is affirmed by us. The finding is sufficient to sustain the order under challenge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - A Pasayat - Full Document

R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs Venkatesha Gupta & Ors on 9 April, 2002

In A.N. Srinivasa Thevar Vs. Sundarambal alias Prema W/o. Chandrakumar, 1995 (2) LW 14, even before the decision by Constitution Bench in Vijay Singh's case was available, it was held in the light of the decision in P. Orr & Sons that the availability of the following factors was sufficient to make out a case of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(b): "(a) Capacity of the landlord to demolish and to reconstruct is undisputed and also proved satisfactorily; (b) The size of the existing building occupies only one third of the site, leaving two third behind vacant and unutilized; (c) Demand for additional space: The demised premises is situated in a busy locality. Therefore, there is a great demand for additional space in the locality which could be met by demolishing the existing small building and putting up a larger building providing for future development vertically also, by building pucca terraced building; (d) The economic advantage: A modern construction of a larger building shall certainly yield better revenue and also appreciate in value, when compared to the asbestos sheet roofed old building." In that case, it was observed that the existing building was an old, out-model asbestos sheet building proposed to be replaced with better and modern building which would provide for better quality accommodation to the needs of the present days as the preservation of such building in a busy locality of a town shall not only be an eyesore but also against the souring public demand for additional space. Viewed from the angle of general interest of the public which, according to the decision in P. Orr & Sons is one of the considerations, it was observed that a big site should yield to a larger modern building with an increased and enlarged accommodation having better facilities to solve the ever increasing demand for more space. Stalling growth and development for the sake of one tenant who is in occupation of an old model building constructed with mud and mortar and asbestos sheets occupying only one third of the site was held to be not conducive to public interest. We approve the statement of law and the approach adopted by Madras High Court in both the abovesaid decisions. The structural and physical features and the nature of the construction of the building cannot be ignored. Even in P. Orr & Sons, this Court was of opinion that various circumstances, such as the capacity of the landlord, size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors, justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authorities, while considering the requirement for reconstruction of the building as the essential and overriding consideration in the general interest of the public and for the protection of the tenant from unreasonable eviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 26 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Harrington House School vs S.M. Ispahani And Anr....Respondents on 9 May, 2002

The High Court has rightly set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and ordered eviction following the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Vijay Singh & Ors. case. It is true that the landlords have not pleaded and relied on the age and condition of the building as one of the components of their bona fides but that is immaterial. The age and condition of the building has been determined and is available for assessing the bona fides of the landlords' need.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 62 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Subramaniyan Pillai vs M. Shamsar Jihan on 19 December, 2008

39. On the basis of the above discussion of the case law, it cannot be said that it is the invariable rule of law that the bona fide requirement for reconstruction of the building can be proved only by examining the landlord or landlady. For that reason alone, a petition cannot be dismissed. The bona fide RCR. NOS. 222, 223, 224 & 238/2008 :34: requirement is a matter to be inferred from the various circumstances as proved to be exist in the case and it is for the court to record its satisfaction that the requirement pleaded is bona fide. In other words, even if the landlord/ landlady come forward and say that he/she bona fide require the building for reconstruction, the court is not bound to order eviction unless it adjudges and finds about the bona fide requirement on an assessment of the materials produced in the case. Thus, it is a matter where an inference is to be drawn from the materials produced. The provision is clear that it puts the duty on the court to satisfy itself of the bona fide requirement before ordering eviction. It was in that connection that the Apex Court in Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal ((1996) 6 SCC 475) held that eviction cannot be ordered on mere asking of the landlord that the building is required for immediate demolition and reconstruction and whether demolition sought with the sole object of getting rid of the tenant is relevant for ascertaining the bona fide requirement of the landlord. While granting permission under Section 14(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, it was held that the Rent Controller has to take into account (i) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (ii) the age and condition of the building and (iii) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. These RCR. NOS. 222, 223, 224 & 238/2008 :35: are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Section 14(1)(b).
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next