Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing Rajinder Parshad vs Rajinder Kaur on 5 October, 2010

Ram Niwas vs Pawan Mehandi Ratta on 11 February, 2019

5. On appreciating the evidence, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation since he was already dealing in readymade garments out of a shop on the first floor where the access was by using a wooden ladder. He had purchased the demised premises by registered sale deed No. 3021 dated 30.08.2013 where he wanted to relocate his business. By relying upon several judgments : Vinod Kumar vs. Prem Bhalla and others 2012(1) HLR, 296, Narinder Singh Vs. Kamla and another 2011 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2019 05:14:39 ::: Civil Revision No.5272 of 2018 -3- (2) RCR 217, Uday Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Naveen Maheshwari 2010 (1) RLR 554, Krishan Lal Sood vs. Sharda Sharma 2008(1) RCR 253, K. Pattaraju vs. A. Hanumegowda 2006(2) RCR 356, Rajinder Parshad and another Vs. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(1) RCR 103, Beant Lal vs. Radhey Sham, 2008(3) RCR 628, Manganlal son Kishaanlal Godha vs. Nanasaheb son of Udhaorao Gadewar 2009(1) RCR 17, M/s Sait Nagjee Purushotam and Co. Ltd. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Others 2005(2) RCR 574 both the Courts below came to hold that the requirement of the respondent herein was bona fide. The plea that he was already doing business of garments in a shop situated on the first floor and did not bonafidely require the premises was negated by holding that it is a prerogative of the landlord to extend his business and choose the location which is most suitable for his business. It was further held that it is not for the tenant to dictate as to where and from which shop landlord should do his business.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - J Thakur - Full Document
1