Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Anil Kumar vs Harpal Singh Banwait And Anr. on 10 April, 2008

Ramesh Gupta vs Ashok Kumar Jain on 19 December, 2011

I draw support to my this view from the law laid down in Anil Kumar vs Harpal Siingh Banwait and another - 2008 (2) - Local Acts Reporter - 176 a judgment given by our own Honorable High Court. Now when evidence of respondent and his witnesses was examined minutely, I have not been able to lay my hand on any material to show that applicant has any other property where he can set up his office or he has sufficient office accommodation within the premises of the plaint of M/s CR No.4054 of 2011 (O&M) 6 Lords Carbons Pvt. Ltd, Mehangorwal. Admittedly Mehangorwal is situated at a distance of more than 10 kilometer from Hoshiarpur and it is a rural area. It is possible that customers of applicant might be facing problem to visit his plant, if any office is made there and by setting up an office in urban area, applicant will certainly be benefited in his business. From that angle his necessity is found to be bonafide. Overall analysis of the evidence brought on record by both the parties, make it clear that applicant is running a manufacturing unit of carbon under the name and style of M/s Lords Carbons Private Limited, at Mehangorwal (Hoshiarpur), which is a rural area. For promotion of his business setting up of the office in urban area is a genuine necessity. It has also come in evidence of the respondent and his witnesses that presently applicant is doing his office work in his drawing room. If at all applicant has an office within factory premises that does not mean that applicant has no necessity to set up office in urban area for facility of his clients. Respondents have not brought on record any evidence to prove that applicant has other accommodation where he can set up desired office. In the given set of circumstances, both these issues are decided in favour of applicant and against respondent by holding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and applicant requires the demised premises for his own bona fide use and occupation."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R K Garg - Full Document

M/S S.S.Fertilizers & Ors vs Kultaran Singh on 13 November, 2014

In similar tone, this Court in Anil Kumar Vs. Harpal Singh Banwait and another, 2008 (1) RCR 638 (P&H) also held that a landlord who establishes the prima facie existence of his necessity, is entitled to raise a presumption in law, that his need is bonafide and onus thereafter shifts to the tenant that plea of landlord was malafide, on this aspect, personal bonafide necessity had been held in favour of the landlord. There is no material or circumstances with the tenant to challenge this finding.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1