Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing S.K. Verma vs Smt. Kamla Kapur on 29 September, 1980

Sh.Udai Singh Tanwar vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia on 21 November, 2022

Khem Chand & Ors. Vs Arjun Jain & Ors., 202 (2013) DLT 613 iv. Vijay Kumar Ahluwalia & Ors. Vs Bishan Chand Maheshwari & Anr., 237(2017) DLT 538 (SC) v. Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Another Vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518 vi. S. K. Verma Vs Smt. Kamla Kapur, AIR 1981 SC 1630 RC ARC 9/2021 Page 7 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ponniah Chettiar vs S. Rajagopal on 5 August, 1982

23. Finally, the learned Counsel, relying on S. K. Verma v. Kamla Kapur would contend that inasmuch as the building Door No. 407 occupied by the tenant who has suffered eviction and who had not preferred fany appeal, is available for the landlord, the appellate authority has not taken into cunsideration the changed circumstances in this case and considered whether the building bearing Door No. 408 is also bona fide required by the landlord. There cannot be any controversy that the landlord sought eviction of both the shops bearing Door Nos. 407 and 408. The Rent Controller has found that both the shops are bona fide required by the landlord as additional accommodation for his residential purposes. As I have pointed out during the narration of the facts of the case, these shops bearing Nos. 407 and 408 are to the left side of the passage and both the shops are contiguous to each other and form one block and when the Rent Controller has found that both the shops are bona fide required by the landlord, there is no question of changed circumstances in this case. Consequently, it cannot be said that the appellate authority has failed to take into account the changed circumstances
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Sh. Dinesh Chand Gupta vs Sh. Anil Kumar Goel on 7 January, 2013

It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.K. Verma V. Kamla Kapur, AIR 1981 SC 1630, in similar circumstances where eviction was sought to accommodate son who died during pendency of petition and no eviction was allowed. In view of these judgments, it is clear that after considering of subsequent events, if the bonafide requirement of the landlord has extinguished, then the bonafide requirement cannot be considered to exist. In the present case, the petitioner has sought recovery of possession of the tenanted shop for bonafide requirement to run / open a photocopy business in the premises in the name of his son namely Sh. Sandeep Kumar who was disable and another son was ready to provide assistance to the deceased son of the petitioner to maintain his business, but during the pendency of this petition, the son of the petitioner namely Sh. Sandeep Kumar has expired and now cause of action does not exist. As such, now this petition is not maintainable being without cause of action, hence dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1