Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (1.86 seconds)
Documents citing B. Balaiah vs Chandoor Lachaiah on 18 January, 1965

Karachi Stores vs Yargani Venkateswara Rao on 26 July, 1982

By doubting the soundness of the decision of the Division Bench in Balaiah v. Lachaiah at this stage, scope will be given to unsettle the rights of the several parties settled earlier. In this view, I am not inclined to refer this case to another Division Bench. As already stated, the finding recorded by the lower appellate authority that, the demised premises is bona fide required by the respondent for carrying on a new business of his own, is a pure finding of fact reached on a critical appraisal of the evidence adduced by both the parties and does not, therefore call for interference.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

In the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Balaiah v. Lachaiah, 1965 (2) ALT 252 the non-residential building in question belonged to the joint family. It was required for the son of the Kartha for starting a new business. The Division Bench while considering the meaning of the words "for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on or which the landlord bona fide proposes to commence", occurring in the relevant section, has observed that the need of the landlord need not necessarily be confined to the physical requirement of the landlord himself; that the said expression and similar other expressions should be liberally construed, and that the said expression is capable of a wide meaning and includes the landlord's family dependents and such person or persons who may be essential and necessary for occupation". Observing that in determining such question, the Court must bear in mind the context of social order, the habits and ideas of living and the social and religious customs of the community to which the concerned individual belongs, the following test was enunciated:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R B Reddy - Full Document

T. Srihari And Anr. vs Haneef Brothers And Ors. on 12 October, 1995

In order to answer this question both sides placed reliance on various decisions already referred to. The Courts in Balaiah's case (3 supra), M. Narasimha's case (4 supra), Padmanabha Setty's case(5 supra), Vijayalaxmi Printing Press case (6 supra), and Pandu'a case (7 supra) took the view, that a landlord who is not in occupation of non-residential building but tenant in occupation of such a premises, can seek for eviction of the tenant, for bona fide use and occupation of himself or other members of his family, whereas respondents contended that in view of law laid down in Vidyavathi Bai's ease (1 supra), Vijayalaxmi Printing Press case (6 supra) and Devaji's case (2 supra), eviction not permissible. But the circumstances involved and the point arisen had not cropped up for consideration in above three cases.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

N.G. Shah vs T.N. Mohan Raj on 25 June, 2003

12. The learned Counsel further seeks to place reliance upon a Bench Judgment of this Court in Balaiah v. Lachaiah, . That was a case where the question that fell for consideration was as to whether a father-cum-manager of a joint Hindu family who was in possession of a non-residential building could not ask for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act of a tenant from another non-residential building belonging to the family in the same city on the ground that his undivided major son requires it for carrying on his business. The Bench ultimately answered the point in the affirmative. Obviously, it was a case where the father and the son belonged to a joint family and the demised premises too belonged to the joint family.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Thangiah Nadar And Sons A Registered ... vs R. Rajathi Ammal on 18 September, 1981

16. On behalf of the landlady reliance is placed upon a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case reported in B. Bataiah v. Chandoor Lachiah where it was held that a father cummanager of a joint Hindu, family, who is in occupation of a non-residential building, is entitled to ask for eviction of a tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) from another non-residential building belonging to the family in the same city on the ground that his undivided major son requires it for carrying on his business. In the course of the judgment the Division Bench observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next