Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)Section 3 in The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Murlidhar Aggarwal And Anr. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 29 July, 1974
3. There is a previous round of litigation which requires a brief
mention. Case No. 124 of 1965 was instituted by Murlidhar Aggarwal
seeking eviction under Section 7A of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of
Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (for short ‘1947 Act’). An order of
eviction was made by the Additional District Magistrate which was
confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. On a revision filed under
Section 7F of the 1947 Act, the tenants succeeded in getting the
2
eviction order set aside by filing a representation before the State
Government. Though the learned Single Judge at the behest of Shri
Murlidhar Aggarwal quashed the order of the State Government, the
Division Bench reversed the order and this Court, by a judgment
reported in Murlidhar Aggarwal v. State of U.P., (1974) 2 SCC 472,
confirmed the order of the Division Bench. The net result was that
the proceedings came to an end and the tenants continued to occupy
the premises.
Joginder Pal vs Naval Kishore Behal on 10 May, 2002
25. It is well settled that the bona fide requirement for occupation of
the landlord has to be liberally construed and, as such, even the
requirement of the family members would be covered. [See Joginder
Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397 and Dwarkaprasad v.
Niranjan and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 549]
Dwarkaprasad vs Niranjan And Another on 4 March, 2003
25. It is well settled that the bona fide requirement for occupation of
the landlord has to be liberally construed and, as such, even the
requirement of the family members would be covered. [See Joginder
Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397 and Dwarkaprasad v.
Niranjan and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 549]
Mohd. Ayub & Anr vs Mukesh Chand on 5 January, 2012
In Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155,
this Court, by relying on Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital and
Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 770 and Bhagwan Dass v. Jiley Kaur (Smt) and
Anr., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 300, held that one of the circumstances to
be seen while appreciating the comparative hardship is to examine
whether the tenant has brought on record any material to indicate that
at any time during the pendency of the long drawn-out litigation, he
made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and was
unable to get it. This factor will be one of the circumstances to be
taken into consideration while determining whether the claim of the
landlord is bona fide. In this case, nothing is on record to show that
the tenant who has been in the premises for a total of 73 years with 63
years of them after the expiry of the lease, has made any attempt to
seek any alternative accommodation and nothing is brought on record
to show that he was unable to get one.
Ganga Devi vs Distt. Judge, Nainital & Ors on 13 May, 2008
In Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155,
this Court, by relying on Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital and
Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 770 and Bhagwan Dass v. Jiley Kaur (Smt) and
Anr., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 300, held that one of the circumstances to
be seen while appreciating the comparative hardship is to examine
whether the tenant has brought on record any material to indicate that
at any time during the pendency of the long drawn-out litigation, he
made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and was
unable to get it. This factor will be one of the circumstances to be
taken into consideration while determining whether the claim of the
landlord is bona fide. In this case, nothing is on record to show that
the tenant who has been in the premises for a total of 73 years with 63
years of them after the expiry of the lease, has made any attempt to
seek any alternative accommodation and nothing is brought on record
to show that he was unable to get one.
Bhagwan Das vs Smt. Jiley Kaur And Another on 27 August, 1990
In Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155,
this Court, by relying on Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital and
Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 770 and Bhagwan Dass v. Jiley Kaur (Smt) and
Anr., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 300, held that one of the circumstances to
be seen while appreciating the comparative hardship is to examine
whether the tenant has brought on record any material to indicate that
at any time during the pendency of the long drawn-out litigation, he
made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and was
unable to get it. This factor will be one of the circumstances to be
taken into consideration while determining whether the claim of the
landlord is bona fide. In this case, nothing is on record to show that
the tenant who has been in the premises for a total of 73 years with 63
years of them after the expiry of the lease, has made any attempt to
seek any alternative accommodation and nothing is brought on record
to show that he was unable to get one.
Sushila ] vs Iind Addl.District Judge, Banda & Ors on 17 December, 2002
In Sushila v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda and Ors.,
(2003) 2 SCC 28, interpreting Rule 16 of the Rules of 1972, it was
held as under:-