Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 601 (1.55 seconds)
Documents citing Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal on 11 July, 2001

M/S. Indian Scientific Glass ... vs M.K. Mahipalsingh on 22 January, 2018

24. The decision of the Supreme Court in Deena Nath vs. Pooran Lal 23 would also not assist the petitioner. In this decision the question which fell for consideration was the application of section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 which enabled the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant of non-residential premises on a bonafide requirement of the landlord for starting his business or that of any of his major son and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonable and suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. Considering the said statutory provision, the Court observed that the requirement of the landlord should not be a fanciful desire and a requirement in praesenti but also it must be manifested by actual need. The requirement of the said statutory provision 23 (2001)5 Supreme Court Cases 705 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:34 ::: psv 35 wp 5865-98.doc was that the landlord has no other reasonable or suitable non- residential accommodation. It is in this context, the Court held that the landlord at the time of the filing of the suit had one vacant shop - room in his occupation and in the course of the proceedings, one more shop - room had come in his occupation. The Court thus held that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Narayanan S vs T.V.Seethalakshmi on 3 June, 2022

In Regy V. Edthil v. Hubert Leslie D'Cruz [2016 (2) KLJ 164], another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, a Division Bench of this Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal [(2001) 5 SCC 705], wherein the Apex Court held that, in order to order eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord, the statutory requirement is that there must be an actual pressing need, not a mere whim or fanciful desire; it must be in praesenti and also the landlord must not be in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the town or city concerned. In the said decision, the Division Bench relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222], wherein it was held that, the term 'bona fide' or 'genuinely' refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The phrase 'required bona fide' is suggestive of Legislative intent is an outcome of a sincere and honest desire, in contra distinction with a mere desire, by the Rent Control Legislation.
Kerala High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

K.K.Kunhalu vs Kunnumbrath Beevi on 10 August, 2022

In Regy V. Edthil v. Hubert Leslie D'Cruz [2016 (2) KLJ 164] a Division Bench of this Court relied on the decision R.C.REV.No.288 OF 2019 10 of the Apex Court in Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal [(2001) 5 SCC 705], wherein the Apex Court held that, in order to order eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord, the statutory requirement is that there must be an actual pressing need, not a mere whim or fanciful desire; it must be in praesenti and also the landlord must not be in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the town or city concerned. In the said decision, the Division Bench relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222], wherein it was held that, the term 'bona fide' or 'genuinely' refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The phrase 'required bona fide' is suggestive of Legislative intent is an outcome of a sincere and honest desire, in contra distinction with a mere desire, by the Rent Control Legislation.
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

S. Manpreet Singh vs Jagjit Singh Sukhbir Singh on 20 January, 2022

52. The decisions in Sri Prakash Gupta vs Dharmanand Pandey decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 04.11.2011 in RC Rev no. 88/2011 & CM no. 6181/2011; Vinod Ahuja vs Anil Bajaj - 194 (2012) DLT 203; Satpal vs Sahi Ram decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 27.05.2011 in RC Rev no. 25/2010; Pradeep Kumar Sethi vs Rajender Kumar Sethi decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 18.07.2011 in RC Rev no. 127/2010; Jawahar Lal vs Ravinder Kumar Khanna:195 (2012) DLT 239; Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal: AIR 2001 SC 2655; Rajbir Pal vs Kanwar Pratap Singh decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.10.2011 in RC Rev no. 209/2010 relied upon by the respondents is of no assistance to the respondents as it has been decided on different fact situation and cannot be applied like a Euclid's theorem.
Delhi District Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harish Chandra vs Smt. Krishna Devi And 2 Others on 18 April, 2019

In Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal (supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court has observed that although the finding of bonafide requirement on a first look, appears to be a question of fact, but in recording a finding on the question, the court has to bear in mind the statutory requirements. "If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment. In such case the High Court cannot be faulted for interfering with the finding in exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M K Gupta - Full Document

K.Muthuramalingam vs Kalyani Ragunathan on 10 April, 2007

22.These principles have been clearly set out in the decisions-, which are referred above and they are, 2001(5)SCC 705(Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal) 2000(1)MLJ 25(Sivasubramaniam v. Kashinath Pujari) 1985(1)MLJ 106 (M/s.Thilagaraj Match Works v. Sundaresan) 1994(2)L.W.152(Sankaran, A and another v. Balasundaram S.K. and another) 2002(1)L.W.600(Siddalingamma and another v. mamtha Shenoy).
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Rajeswaran - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next