Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 220 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Hameedia Hardware Stores, Represented ... vs B. Mohan Lal Sowcar on 29 March, 1988

Thandapany vs V.Viswanath on 27 July, 2012

In Hameediya Hardware Stores vs. Mohanlal Sowcar reported in 1988-2-LW 1 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that it is not enough that the landlord should merely desire to use or occupy the premises. What is necessary is that he should have bonafide need for his own use and occupation or for occupation by any of the members of his family as held by the Apex Court in the decisions reported in AIR 1974 SC 1059 and AIR 1974 SC 1596. Hence, it has been made clear that the need of the landlord should be genuine and proved, that is the object of enacting clause (e) of S.10 (3) of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

M.K.Stores Rep.By Its vs A.Syed Sulthan on 22 June, 2021

In the above cases, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.13 in the case reported in (1988) 2 Supreme Court Cases 513 [Hameedia Hardware Stores, rep. By its partner S.Peer Mohammed Vs. B.Mohan Lal Sowcar] has clearly held that the landlord seeking eviction of tenant from the non-residential premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act in order to succeed in his petition, should establish that the bonafide requirement of the premises in addition to proving the other ingredients referred in the Act. Relying on the above judgment, it is clear in the present case, both the Rent Control Authority below had failed to appreciate that the landlord has neither sufficiently or satisfactorily pleaded his bonafide requirement nor proved his requirement and a mere statements during trial or examination, cannot be sufficient to order eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement unless it is supported by proper proof.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

Nandan Brothers And Ors. vs Kamaladevi Chandak And Ors. on 26 July, 1989

(iii) If on the facts of the case it is found that the portions which came under the control of the landlord during the pendency of the proceedings are not sufficient to satisfy the needs of the land lord and fulfil his requirements, the Court cannot refuse to uphold the bona fide of the requirement which is established by the evidence on record. In the present case, on the facts I have found that the portions which fell vacant subsequent to the filing of the petitions for eviction were not sufficient for the respondents to shift their business or a part thereof immediately. The respondents had to wait for the entire building becoming vacant so that they could conveniently shift all their businesses to the petition building. I hold that the respondents have made out a case of bona fide requirement as defined by the Supreme Court in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B.Mohan Lal Sowcar, .
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Nand Kishore Dholiwal And Ors vs Bhanwar And Ors on 1 May, 2023

(Craies Statute Law, 7th Edition, p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, [ 1988] 2 SCC 513 at 524-25 where it was observed that the court construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - G R Meena - Full Document

Vijendra vs Uganti Devi on 1 May, 2023

(Craies Statute Law, 7th Edition, p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, [ 1988] 2 SCC 513 at 524-25 where it was observed that the court construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - G R Meena - Full Document

Rajendra Puri vs Kailash Puri Goswami ... on 1 May, 2023

(Craies Statute Law, 7th Edition, p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, [ 1988] 2 SCC 513 at 524-25 where it was observed that the court construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - G R Meena - Full Document

Chitarmal Andors vs Smt Mangli Devi Andanr on 1 May, 2023

(Craies Statute Law, 7th Edition, p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, [ 1988] 2 SCC 513 at 524-25 where it was observed that the court construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - G R Meena - Full Document

Girraj Gurjar vs Johari Lal And Anr on 1 May, 2023

(Craies Statute Law, 7th Edition, p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, [ 1988] 2 SCC 513 at 524-25 where it was observed that the court construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - G R Meena - Full Document

Mohammad Saddik S/O Shri Mohd. Shafik vs Sultan Begum W/O Mohd. Shafik on 1 May, 2023

(Craies Statute Law, 7th Edition, p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, [ 1988] 2 SCC 513 at 524-25 where it was observed that the court construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - G R Meena - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next