Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 185 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs vs Chaganlal Sundarji And Co on 13 October, 1999

Shankar Bhairoba Vadangekar, Since ... vs Ganpati Appa Gatare, Since Deceased, By ... on 27 June, 2001

This principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above in the case of Raghunath Panhale v. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co. (supra). The Apex Court has reiterated the principle that the Legislature employed two terms "reasonably" and "bona fide" together, the requirement must be real and genuine from any reasonable standard. All the same, the genuineness of the requirement is not to be on par with the dire need of a landlord because the latter's need is much greater. The Apex Court has further observed that there is no warrant for presuming that the landlord's need is not bona fide. The statute enjoins that the Court should be satisfied of the requirement of the landlord. So, the Court would look into the broad aspects and if the Court feels any doubt about the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is for the landlord to clear such doubts. The Apex Court has observed that it is open to the Court to presume that the landlord's requirement is bona fide and put the contesting tenant to the burden to show how the requirement is not bona fide.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Shri Anil Jain vs Shri Bhagwan Shankar Khanna on 30 July, 2014

The tenant, in his application for leave to defend and also before this court, has contended that the son is employed with M/s. Bird Travels, is well settled and earning a sum of Rs.70,000/- and hence he need not start a new business. However, this was denied by the landlord and he stated that his son was employed with M/s. AMCO Travels earning a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The tenant further contended that in the past several years he never intended to start such a business, besides the tenanted premises was too small and in by lane in old Delhi, which has no potential for such business. R.C. Rev. No.133/2014 Page 11 of 15 Learned ARC relied upon Raghunath G. Panhale v. M/S Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., AIR 1999 SC 3864 wherein it was observed that:
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 11 - N Waziri - Full Document

Shyam Chandra And Ors. vs District Judge Sultanpur And 2 Ors. on 11 July, 2024

19. As per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by LRs v. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 1, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to prove bona-fide need, a landlord does not require to establish dire or compelling need for a premises in order to establish his business and it is the choice of the landlord which would be paramount in such circumstances.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M Kumar - Full Document

Mst Jameela Bano And Others vs Qazi Abdul Rashid on 1 November, 2021

The conclusion arrived at by the trial court, on the basis of the evidence on record is subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Court also that there existed a personal necessity of the respondent to use and occupy the suit property for his personal use after his retirement and for his son. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By LRs v. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. reported as (1999) 8 SCC 1 has held that the landlord does not need to lose his existing job, neither to resign nor to reach the level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business. Paragraph no. 11, being relevant is taken note of hereunder:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Magrey - Full Document

Murlimanohar S/O Gokuldasji Bhangde ... vs Prabha Bhattacharya (Dr.) on 23 December, 2004

Thus, this ruling clearly shows that the learned Rent Controller has not applied correct test while considering the need of respondent No. 1. The respondent landlady and her sisters are qualified medical practitioner and are competent to establish nursing home. There was nothing before the Rent Controller to doubt their bona fides and the petitioner/tenant has failed to establish that the said requirement of landlady is not bona fide. This aspect will be considered little latter while considering the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Clause 13(4) and (5) of Rent Control Order also permit re-entry of tenant in case landlord fails to occupy or use premises for the purpose for which permission is granted as laid down in Section 17 of Bombay Rent Act. The facts that petitioner and her sisters are qualified gynaecologists with experience and suit property belongs to them and they have intention to start maternity home and hospital these are sufficient to grant permission considering the scheme as envisaged by Clause 13(3)(vi) and (4), (5) and (6) of Rent Control Order. The petitioner has not come up with defence that law does not permit such user of suit property. No provision in Rent Control Order clothes tenant with locus to contend that landlady can not start her hospital on suit property or that he should also be accommodated in structure of such hospital against wishes of landlady.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sh. Rajnesh Kumar vs Sh. S.S. Aggarwal on 11 December, 2018

Similarly, in Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8   SCC   1  it   was   held   that   the   word   "reasonable"   connotes   that   the E­77745/16                                                                                                     Page 11/12 requirement or the need is not fanciful or unreasonable but need not also be a "compelling" or "absolute" or "dire necessity".  A reasonable and bonafide requirement was held to be something in between a mere desire or wish on the one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity on the other hand.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next