Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 199 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996

Ismailbhai Gulam Hussain vs Additional Collector And Ors. on 20 January, 2006

While holding that landlord is the best judge of his need and has power to choose between two or three accommodation which are available to him and ask tenant in accommodation selected by him to vacate, this Court has relied upon Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies (supra) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in between R.C. Tamrakar v. Nidhi Lekha. In latter judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court held that landlady cannot be forced to stay with her doctor son who has constructed his own house.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Ismalibhai Gulam Hussain vs Additional Collector And Ors. on 12 January, 2006

While holding that landlord is the best Judge of his need and has power to choose between two or three accommodation which are available to him and ask tenant in accommodation selected by him to vacate, this Court has relied upon Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies (supra) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in , between (R.C. Tamrakarv, Nidhi Lekha)20.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

R.K.Nair vs Saramma George on 3 January, 2006

9. It was already proved that there was a tyre company in existence run by the deceased George and that was in the premises of his elder son in Whites Road, Madras and as the later wanted to get it vacated, the landlord claimed a portion of his premises in Nandanam, which is a busier locality. The say that some other premises in Whites Road was lying vacant remained un-proved. Similar contention that there were other shops in the ground floor of the petition mentioned premises owned by the landlord lying vacant and those were left not occupied but only let to others is also is not sufficient in order to make the bona fide of the landlord as untrue. This is so because as held in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders & Agencies & Another 1996 (5) SCC 344 cited above and at page 353 of th e same volume Prativa Devi v. T.V.Krishnan, option is not that of the appellant/tenant.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - S R Singharavelu - Full Document

Prakash Dattaram Parulekat & Others vs Dattaram Damodar Diukar & Others on 4 December, 1998

14. There is no doubt that the landlord is the best Judge of his residential requirement and the Apex Court in that regard has clearly held in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies and another (supra) that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and he is the best judge of his residential requirement. If the landlord desires to beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property occupied by him as a tenant or on any other basis is either insecure or inconvenient, it is not for the courts to dictate to him to continue to occupy such premises. The decision of the Apex Court, therefore, clearly disclose that when a landlord owns more than one building and he wants to occupy a particular building it is necessary for such landlord to disclose as to why he chooses that particular building for his occupation and thereby justify the eviction of the tenant from such premises. In this regard, the Apex Court in the matter of Rahabhar Productions Put.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

K.R. Chopra vs Smt. Manjit Inder Kaur on 7 April, 2003

24. Still further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders & Agencies, 1996(2) Rent Control Reporter 233 has held that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live. If the landlord desires to beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property occupied by him as a tenant or on any other basis which is either insecure or inconvenient. It is not for the courts to dictate him to continue to occupy such premises.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - H Gupta - Full Document

Rani vs Kaushalya Devi And Ors. on 22 November, 2006

11. After hearing No. 1 for the parties I find merit in the contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlady. It has clearly come in the statement of the landlady that she is serving in Amritsar. It is therefore that she desires to reside at Am-ritsar. The demised premises is the only residential house that she has at Amritsar. Her need to reside at Amritsar for her bona fide personal necessity is thus to be respected in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan (supra) and Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (Mrs.) v. Traders and Agencies and Anr. (supra). The Court cannot suggest that she should reside at one place or the other. In the face of the fact that the landlady has to commute for about 18 K.M. everyday morning and evening even up to date at the age of 54 years 1 am of the opinion that her plea of bona fide personal necessity is well founded and deserves to be accepted. In my opinion the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller that she has not stated in her deposition that she is serving at Amritsar is totally perverse as such a statement has been clearly made by her. The Rent Controller further opines that she can comfortably stay at Raja Sansi. Even this opinion in my view is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus the findings recorded by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the Appellate Authority are in my opinion totally perverse and I have thus no hesitation in reversing the same. For the reasons aforementioned, the present petition is allowed. The petition filed by the landlady for eviction of the respondents-tenants is allowed. The tenants are directed to hand over vacant possession of the house to the landlady on or before February 28, 2007.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Purshottam Dass Through L.Rs. vs Kashi Prasad Jain Through L.Rs. on 26 August, 2003

(vi) In Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies (14), it was held that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live. Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. If landlord desired to beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property occupied by him as a tenant or on any other basis is either insecure [B] or inconvenient it is not for the courts to dictate him to continue to occupy such premises.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next