Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)
Shyam Babu Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 24 October, 2024 cites

Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs C.P.Joshi on 24 January, 2011

16. The next decision relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Kalyan Singh Chouhan (supra). In this case which arose out of an election petition filed under the Representation of People Act, 1951 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that party to the election petition must plead the material fact and substantiate its affirmation by adducing sufficient evidence. It proceeded to hold that the Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and the issue cannot be framed unless there are pleadings to raise the controversy on a particular fact or law. It is not permissible for the Court to allow the party to lead evidence which is not in line of the pleadings. This Court finds no applicability whatsoever of the ratio of this decision to the facts of the instant case in which the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 11 (1)(c) of the Act has been challenged.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 194 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Mrs. Veena Rani And Ors. vs Mrs. Ishrati Amanullah And Anr. on 14 June, 1984

17. The next decision relied on by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Veena Rani (supra) wherein this Court held that personal necessity does not mean that the landlord must be in dire need of the house before a decree for eviction can be passed on the ground of personal necessity. Referring to the judgment in the case of Mst.
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 8 - N P Singh - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar vs Yusuf Ali on 26 May, 2010

In the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) relied on by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the law with respect to a second appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code wherein it proceeded to hold that if the High Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence on record recorded by the Courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or based on irrelevant material, the appeal can be entertained and it is permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence. It further held that the landlord is the best judge of his need, however, the same should be real, genuine and may not be a pretext to evict the tenant only for increasing the rent. This Court sees no application of this judgment to the facts of the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 186 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. Thr.Poa Holder vs M.I.D.C. & Ors on 2 November, 2012

19. So far as the case of Tukaram Joshi (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering Article 300-A of the Constitution held that right to property is Patna High Court CWJC No.17732 of 2022 dt.24-10-2024 15/18 not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also human right. In the opinion of this Court, the ratio of this judgment also has no applicability so far as the challenge to the vires of the proviso to section 11 (1)(c) is concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 194 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978

Bega Begum & Patna High Court CWJC No.17732 of 2022 dt.24-10-2024 14/18 Others versus Abdul Ahad Khan (AIR 1979 SC 272) it was held that reasonable requirement postulates that there must be an affirmation of needs as opposed to a mere desire or wish. It may be observed here that there is no dispute with respect to the law laid down but the same has no applicability nor is of any assistance to the petitioner in the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 200 - S M Ali - Full Document

Namit Sharma vs Union Of India on 13 September, 2012

22. The question which would thus arise is as to whether the petitioner has made out a case herein for declaring the proviso to section 11(1)(c) of the Act as illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional. As seen above in the case of Namit Sharma (supra), a law may be declared unconstitutional on the ground of it being in contravention of the fundamental rights specified in Part III of the Constitution; legislating on a subject which is not assigned to the relevant legislature under the Sev- enth Schedule; contravention of any mandatory provison of the Constitution; in case of a State law, if it seeks to operate beyond the boundaries of the State or in case the legislature concerned has abdicated it's essential legislative function assigned to it by Constitution or has made an excessive delegation of that power to some other body. The petitioner herein has not been able to make out any case to challenge the vires or constitutional valid- ity of the proviso to section 11(1)(c) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 268 - S Kumar - Full Document

Nasirul Haque vs Jitendra Nath Dey on 24 August, 1984

21. It may be mentioned here that so far as the law on partial eviction as provided in proviso to section 11(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, the scope of the proviso, the factors to be considered in determining reasonable requirement of the land- lord, whether the reasonable requirement would be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part of the premises etc. have all been subject matter of a large number of decisions both in this Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reference in this context may be made to the judgments in the case of Nas- irul Haque vs. Jitendra Nath Dey [AIR 1984 SC 1799], Ms. Veena Rani (supra), Smt. Kalawati Tripathi & Others vs. Patna High Court CWJC No.17732 of 2022 dt.24-10-2024 17/18 Smt. Damayanti Devi & Anr. [AIR 1993 Pat 1 (DB)] and Krishna Murari Prasad vs. Mitar Singh [1994 (1) PLJR 87 (SC)]. The facts of the respective cases and the law laid down is not being gone into in detail as the same are not of relevance herein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 17 - S M Ali - Full Document

Kalawati Kuar & Ors vs The Patna High Court Thru.R.G. on 22 July, 2010

21. It may be mentioned here that so far as the law on partial eviction as provided in proviso to section 11(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, the scope of the proviso, the factors to be considered in determining reasonable requirement of the land- lord, whether the reasonable requirement would be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part of the premises etc. have all been subject matter of a large number of decisions both in this Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reference in this context may be made to the judgments in the case of Nas- irul Haque vs. Jitendra Nath Dey [AIR 1984 SC 1799], Ms. Veena Rani (supra), Smt. Kalawati Tripathi & Others vs. Patna High Court CWJC No.17732 of 2022 dt.24-10-2024 17/18 Smt. Damayanti Devi & Anr. [AIR 1993 Pat 1 (DB)] and Krishna Murari Prasad vs. Mitar Singh [1994 (1) PLJR 87 (SC)]. The facts of the respective cases and the law laid down is not being gone into in detail as the same are not of relevance herein.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1