Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 238 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006

Bibi Dhira Bala Malhotra vs Sh. S.K. Prakash on 16 December, 2013

32. As regards respondent's objection to the effect that petitioner has no experience in fashion and retail, including marketing and retail advisory and the terminology of business used in the petition are vague and incapable of interpretation and she does not wish to carry any business but wants to oust him from the premises for settling scores against him, petitioner has refuted his objection and relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in case titled Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain and another case titled Ram Babu Agarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das to argue that past­experience is not a pre­requisite for starting a new venture. The findings given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in these two judgments cited by petitioner's counsel do not require any discussion and the objection raised by respondent does not constitute any ground which would require adjudication. The relevant portion of the rulings are recorded below:
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khyali Ram vs Mahaveer Prasad on 15 October, 2009

In my view, the finding of the trial court in this regard is totally absurd. On the contrary, the first appellate court has rightly concluded that to run a grocery shop, a very big shop is not required and a shop measuring 7x10 fts. can reasonably accommodate certain articles which are necessary to run grocery shop. Even otherwise, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain (supra) held that experience in the business is not a pre-condition under any statute. Even no experience therefor may be necessary. What the Court is required to consider is that the landlord has proved his bonafide requirement to evict the tenant for his own purpose. The Court may not unless an appropriate case is made out, disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the appellate authority. While adjudging the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is true that the need of the landlord to occupy the rented premises has to be natural, real and sincere as against mere desire of the landlord. Considering the case in hand on the material on record, it cannot be said that the respondent landlord seeks a decree of eviction only for a mere desire when from the pleading and evidence produced by the landlord and witnesses produced by him have established that the respondent landlord is sitting 16 SBCSA No. 181/03 idle may be earlier he used to sit on the shop of his son and do some work there but at any rate when the respondent landlord specifically came with a case that there had been strained relations between him and his son and his son does not allow him to sit on the shop, obviously, without sitting on the shop he would not be in a position to share any benefit out of the business of trading in cement run by his son and therefore, has thought fit to get the disputed rented premises evicted in order to run his own business of grocery and for running the business of grocery as to whether any experience is needed or not is not material even if the witness says that he did not earlier run the business of grocery would not preclude him from running business of grocery at subsequent stage and therefore, in my view, there is nothing on record to show that the first appellate court misread the FIR lodged by the respondent landlord. To establish that the respondent landlord did not have good relation with his son there is sufficient oral evidence and therefore, said FIR has absolutely no relevancy to decide the issue between the parties. So far as second substantial question of law as formulated, in my view, there is absolutely no evidence that the appellants had been working with the original tenant since deceased during his life time on the said disputed shop. Firstly, the suit was filed against the original tenant Khayali Ram and therefore, there was no question of raising this plea before the trial court but at any rate if the appellants who are legal 17 SBCSA No. 181/03 representatives of the original tenant had been working with the original tenant during his life time then also the suit is based on reasonable and bonafide necessity for personal use of the shop and therefore, even if they have been working with the original tenant during his life time, it has no bearing to decide the issue in question. Even the appellants did not make any efforts to lead additional evidence before the appellate court to the effect that they have been working with the original tenant during his life time, it is only for the first time during hearing of the appeal that an argument was raised without there being any foundation and basis. In this view of the matter, the decisions relied on by learned counsel for the appellants are of no help to the appellants, as against it, the decisions relied on by learned counsel for the respondent support the decision rendered by the first appellate court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Jagdish Parshad Since Deceased Through ... vs Rakesh Kumar Yadav on 30 January, 2023

The Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Prasad Jain versus Manohar Lal Jain (supra) had held that the previous experience in the business is not a pre-condition under any statute. Once the respondent/landlord has proved his bonafide requirement to evict the tenant for his own purpose, the Court may not, unless an appropriate case is made out, disturb the eviction order passed against the tenant, upheld by the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the High Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A S Grewal - Full Document

Manmohan Singh vs Savitri Devi on 2 April, 2024

8.7 It is settled law that a landlord need not have know how or experience of the business sought to be started as held in Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manoher Lal Jain, AIR 2006 SC ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 16 /19 1471, Ram Babu Agarwal v. Jay Kishan Das, AIR 2010 SC 721 and Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj AIR 2008 SC 526.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tehal Singh vs Harnam Kaur And Ors on 23 August, 2023

The eviction petition was instituted in the year 2011. It is no longer res integra that an eviction petition can be maintained by even one landlord where there are more than one. Further, in so far as the co-owners are concerned, it is also well settled that a suit or an eviction petition filed by one co-owner would also be maintainable, provided the other co-owners would not have any objection to the same. Reference in this regard can be made to the 13 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2023 09:38:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110241 CR-4987-2015 14 2023:PHHC:110241 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohinder Prasad Jain versus Manohar Lal Jain's case (supra) wherein it was held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next