Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Ganga Devi vs Distt. Judge, Nainital & Ors on 13 May, 2008

Prakash Chandra And Others vs Krishna Kumar And Others on 11 January, 2019

52. With regard to the comparative hardship that has been pleaded by the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Mohd. Ayub & Another v. Mukesh Chandra reported in 2012 (2) SCC 155 and in Ganga Devi vs. District Judge, Nainital reported in 2008 (7) SCC 770 that the question as to whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide or not within the meaning of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the rules is essentially a question of fact.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - S Chandra - Full Document

Prakash Chandra vs Sri Ritesh Bhargawa on 20 August, 2020

Not only this, the Court has also considered the Rule 16 of the Rules, 1972 and considering the another judgment of Ganga Devi (supra), Court has taken the view that Rule 16 of Rules, 1972 would not come in the rescue of petitioner, in case, petitioner-tenant has not made any effort to search another accomodation. Here in the present case, there is no dispute on the point that petitioner has not made any effort to search alternative accomodation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 72 - Cited by 2 - N Tiwari - Full Document

Smt. Geeta Shukla And Another vs District Judge Unnao And 2 Others on 31 May, 2022

The court further observed that there was an additional circumstance that needed to be considered which was that the tenant had not brought on record any material to indicate that at any time during the pendency of long drawn litigation he had made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and was unable to get it. In Ganga Devi(supra) the Supreme Court also clarified that the length of the period of tenancy as provided under clause (a) of sub- rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the UP Act is only one of the factors to be taken into account in context with other factors and circumstances of the case and cannot be the sole criterion or the deciding factor to order or not the eviction.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document

Smt Shanti Devi Parashar (Pand vs Smt Koshalya Devi Goyal on 18 July, 2013

The Supreme Court in Ganga Devi vs. District Judge, Nainital & Ors.-(2008) 7 SCC 770 has held that comparative hardship indisputably is a relevant factor for determining the question as to whether requirement of the landlord is bona fide or not and it is essentially a question of fact. The Court would not determine the question only on the basis of sympathy or sentiment.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next