Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (1.66 seconds)
Documents citing Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungloo on 17 February, 2017

S.Murugan vs S.Kasthuribai on 4 June, 2019

36.Strictly Section 10 (3) (c) can be invoked only where the landlord is doing business by himself or herself. In this case respondent-landlady was admittedly not carrying on any business when the request was made to the petitioner. On the date of the petition no business was also carried on by her daughter. It appears it was in anticipation of the business to be started by the daughter of the respondent, a request was made to the petitioner to vacate the rented premise. As per the decisions cited by the learned counsel in R.V.Dharmalinga Mudaliar vs K.Annamalai AIR 1981 http://www.judis.nic.in Mad 312, in Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungaloo 22 (2017) 5 SCC 683 and in Narapatchand A. Bhandari vs Shantilal Moolshankar Jan and Another (1993) 3 SCC 351 supra have held that requirement by the members of the family member was sufficient to uphold eviction.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Mohan Singh Rathore vs Dhannjay Rao Jadhav on 30 August, 2019

He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nidhi vs. Ram Kripal Sharma (dead) Through Legal Representatives, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 640 and Mehmooda Gulshan vs. Javaid Hussain Mungloo, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 683 and has argued that the aforesaid application is being filed just to unnecessary delay the proceedings of the learned trial Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - V Mishra - Full Document

Ms. Kuldeep Kaur vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh on 16 October, 2019

Son N. Shade Opticians & Ors. Vs. Shyam Sunder Budhiraja 248 (2018) DLT 463, Batuk Prasad Jaitly Vs. Rajesh Chugh & Anr. 240 (2017) DLT 695, Sait Nagjee Purshotham & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 252, Mehmooda ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 29 /31 Gulshan Vs. Javaid Hussain Mungloo (2017) 5 SCC 683, Financial Times Ltd. Vs. Times Publishcing House Ltd. 234 (2016) DLT 305, Vinod Gupta Vs. Kailash Aggarwal & Ors. 256 (2019) DLT76, Gauri Shanker Vs. Laxmi Chand, Kashi Nath (Dead) Through L.Rs Vs. Jaganath (2003) 8 SCC 740, Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal And Another (2003) 8 SCC 745, Gangamma and Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Hiralal Shaw vs Smt. Bharati Manna & Ors on 20 March, 2020

Mr. Chakraborty also refers to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehmooda Gulshan vs. Javaid Russain Mungloo reported in AIR 2017 SC 1047 and submits that the question as to whether the landlord has genuine need is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and ones there is no need for finding of fact cannot be reopened. It is for 22 the landlord to decide to the best use of the premises and there is nothing wrong on the part of the landlord in making plans for a better living by doing business engaging her son. According to Mr. Chakraborty, the First Appellate Court is the final court of fact held on appreciation of evidence on record that landlords reasonably require the suit godown for their commercial purpose no perversity of such finding was allowed by the appellant. No substantial question of law on perversity of impugned judgment was also framed under such circumstances finding of fact cannot be reopened in the second appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document

Shri Brahm Dev Sharma vs ) Shri Kanwar Kishore Nagpal on 29 August, 2022

In reply to which the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Mehmooda Gulshan Vs. Javed Hussain Munglu dated 17.02.2017 (2017 (3) SCALE­21) Supreme Court in which it is held that mere non­ examination of family member who intends to do business cannot be taken as ground repelling the reasonable requirement of the landlord. It was further held that it is not necessary to examine the person for who the RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 13 of 19 needs the premises or require.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

H.S. Dhillon (Retd) vs Akhilesh Kumar Sinha on 22 September, 2022

Furthermore, as recently as in the case of 'Mehmooda Gulshan' (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court re-affirmed the said view by holding that merely because the landlord had not examined a member of his family, who intended to do business on the premises, he could not be non-suited on that ground if otherwise he had been able to successfully establish his genuine need. Therefore, it is amply clear that the Appellate Authority had acted in contravention to the aforesaid settled principle of law.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M N Kaul - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next