Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Nanalal Goverdhandas & Co. And Ors. vs Samratbai Lilachand Shah on 18 March, 1980

Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. vs Sudesh Kumar Jassal on 22 August, 2013

25. The ratio laid down in Charan Dass Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand, (1983) 1 SCC 301 and Nanalal Goverdhandhas and Co. Vs. Samratbai Lilachand Shah, AIR (1981) Bom. 1 is not disputed, but the present case falls in the ambit of cases where the landlord has successfully proved his bonafide requirements which must be honoured and recognized by this Court. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the one before this Court being different on facts cannot have identical outcome, and are hence of no assistance to the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 37 - M Singh - Full Document

Shri Surinder Gera vs Col. Rajesh Ratan Seth on 25 July, 2012

14. The ratio laid down in Charan Dass Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand and Nanalal Goverdhandhas and Co. Vs. Samratbai Lilachand Shah, is not disputed, but the present case falls in the ambit of cases where the landlord has successfully proved his bonafide requirements which must be honoured and recognized by this Court. The cases relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the one before this Court being different on facts, cannot have identical outcome, and are hence of no assistance to the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 16 - M L Mehta - Full Document

Business vs // on 23 June, 2009

The Division Bench observed that it did not agree with the proposition which had been adumbrated by the learned single Judge in Nanalal Vs. Samratbai. The Bench observed that it may be that certain facts which are needed to establish bonafide requirement are in personal knowledge of the landlord alone. But if these factors can be established by evidence other than that of landlord, which would sufficiently indicate that the landlady requires the premises bonafide, it was not clear as to why it would be necessary, as a matter of law, that the landlord must examine himself, with fatal consequence if he omitted to do so. The question, in view of the Division Bench, was whether the evidence with regard to the bonafide requirement should or should not be accepted in a given case in the absence of evidence of the landlord himself. I am in respectful agreement with the observations that it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that bonafide need cannot be proved without examining the landlord himself. In this case, the evidence of landlady's husband about the need for her children was as good as evidence which the landlady could herself have given and therefore, her non-examination could not have been fatal to the case.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R C Chavan - Full Document

Bhu Prakash And Anr. vs District Judge And Ors. on 4 March, 2005

In Nandlal Goverdhandas and Co. and Ors. v. Smt. Samratbai Lilachand Shah, AIR 1981 Bom. 1, the High Court construed the import of words "by himself" and held that "for occupation by himself do not restrict the proposed occupation to the occupation of landlord alone but may include the occupation by member of his family. The requirement of the landlord for occupation by the dependent of the landlord may be the requirement by the landlord. In a given case the landlord may be dependent upon a person and it may be the necessity of the landlord that such other person should occupy the premises. It emotionally the landlord feels that a relation of his such as daughter or son-in-law should stay with him, it can be regarded as the requirement by the landlord of the premises 'for occupation by himself. This is as regards residential premises. In case of non-residential premises it the landlord's interests are shown to be linked with the occupation of those premises by some one for whom he is seeking the possession of the suit premises it can be said that the requirement of the landlord for occupation by himself is established. The High Court also held accommodation to a particular person then the requirement by the landlord for occupation of that person may squarely fall under Section 13 (1) (g). Having taken into consideration the several precedents from different High Courts the learned Judge held that the determinative test underlying the several propositions propounded by the High Courts is the basis fact that the requirement is by the landlord and that there must be a nexus between the interests of the landlord and the one who would physically occupy the premises so as to tantamount to occupation of the premises "by himself", i.e. the landlord.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R Tandon - Full Document

Sri Venkata Rama Alluminium Co. And Ors. vs Boddu Narayanamma on 29 July, 1997

12. The decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Nanalal Goverdhan Das & Company v. Samratbai, was also considered by the Division Bench in the above cited decision reported in M.S. Malpani v. A.D. Asaws (2 supra). The building in the case concerned in that decision of the Bombay High Court was owned by the landlady and she required the premises for expanding the business carried on by her son.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R B Reddy - Full Document

Jahabdurunnisa Begum And Anr. vs S. Balakrishna on 2 November, 2001

9. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, on point No. 1 as to whether the petitioners require the petition property for their personal use and occupation, the learned Rent Controller relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Nandlal Goverdhandas and Company v. Samratbai, , wherein it was held "the bona fide requirement is in the first place a state of mind though it may be something more. It must therefore, be deposed to by the person who is requiring the premises under Section 13(1)(g) namely, the landlord. If the landlord does not step into the witness box to bring before the Court legal evidence for proving his requirement, then it cannot be said that the reasonably and bona fidely requires the premises as mentioned in Section 13(1)(g). The landlord can delegate the authority to conduct a case but he cannot delegate the duty to depose." Relying on the above decision, the learned Rent Controller in his order on point No. 1 observed that that "since the petitioners did not choose to come into the witness box and they have not placed any material before the Court to show that they had taken any single step to commence their business after they purchased the property, and since it is an admitted fact that the burden of proof lies on the landlord to prove that his requirement is bona fide, the petitioners have not established their bona fide requirement in respect of the petition property. Observing so, the held that point in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners-landladies.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - E D Rao - Full Document

Raj Bahadur And Ors. vs Sushila Devi Nigam And Ors. on 16 February, 1981

As regards the family members and the accommodation available on record there is ample evidence led by the landlady consisting of her husband and others and also admission on behalf of the appellants, in view of the overwhelming evidence in support of the facts required to be proved to obtain an order of eviction it is not mandatory that the landlady should appear as a witness. At best it can be said that the landlady took a risk by not appearing as a witness but the landlady cannot be non-suited simply on the ground that she has not appeared as a witness. The evidence of her husband is sufficient to entitle her to an order of eviction. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to Nanalal Goverdhandas & Co. & others v. Smt. Sauratbai Lilachand Shah, AIR. 1980 Bombay , a case under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 wherein the landlady was not examined in support of her case and her suit on ground of bona fide requirement was dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next