Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.05 seconds)Section 11 in Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
Bihar Alloy Steels Ltd. vs Hori Shanker Worah (Properties) Ltd. ... on 10 September, 1986
"It is expected of the parties to raise necessary pleadings so as to
enable the parties to adduce evidence and bring on record such relevant
material as to enable the court forming an opinion on the issue as to
comparative hardship and consistently with such finding whether partial
eviction could meet the ends to justice. Even if no issue has been framed, the
court may discharge its duty by taking into consideration such material as
8
Civil Revision No.118 of 2004
2025:JHHC:18792
available on record." The same principle has been propounded by the
Hon'ble Patna High Court/Ranchi Bench in the case M/s Bihar Alloy Steels
Limited Vs. Hari Shankar Worah (Properties) Ltd. &Ors., relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioner at para 14 of the said judgment.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Pratap Rai Tanwani And Anr vs Uttam Chand And Anr on 8 September, 2004
14. Personal Necessity:- It is well settled law that a tenant take a premises from
the landlord to conduct his business or for the purpose of residence, it is
always choice of landlord to choose premises for his business or residence.
However, subject to condition that there is bonafide need and requirement
for personal necessity. The law is well settled by catena of judgments that
"the reasonable requirement of the landlord postulate that there must be an
element of need as opposed to mere desire and wish. The distinction
between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind, but not so as to
meet even the genuine need as nothing but a desire." The Hon'ble Apex
Court has quoted the aforesaid view in the case of Pratap Rai Tanwani and
Anr. Vs. Uttam Chand & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 490.
1