Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.35 seconds)Vijay Singh Etc. Etc vs Vijayalakshmi Ammal on 10 October, 1996
56.The court there referred also observed that the decision
rendered in P.Orr & Sons case rendered in (1996) 6 SCC 475 and
stated that it had watered down in Vijay Singh vs Vijayalaxmi
Ammal referred to supra.
P. Ganesan vs A. Marimuthu on 30 July, 1999
45.Therefore, views expressed in P.Ganeshan vs A
Marimuthu Sundaram referred to supra cannot be applied to the
facts of the case.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Drugs (Control) Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Harrington House School vs S.M. Ispahani And Anr....Respondents on 9 May, 2002
55.The Honourable Supreme Court in Harrington House
School vs Ispahanini and Another (2002) 5 SCC 229 held that
there was nothing to cast a shadow of doubt on the bona fide of the
landlord pleading an immediate need for demolition followed by
reconstruction and that the landlord was a man of means to put up
construction.
Section 15 in The Drugs (Control) Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
S. Saraswathi Ammal, Wife Of N. ... vs R.S. Mallikarjun Raja And Ors. on 20 January, 1997
50.The court in Saraswathi Ammal vs R.S.Mallikarjunun
Raja 1997 (2) MLJ 474 and in a host of other cases it has been held
that it is well settled that the building need not be in a dilapidated
condition or in a dangerous state of affairs for ordering eviction
under aforesaid provision. It has also been held that the landlord
need not produce currency as long as he has the financial capability
http://www.judis.nic.in
20
to put up new construction in place of the existing construction.
Nidhi vs Ram Kripal Sharma (D) Thr. Lrs on 7 February, 2017
60.It may be apt to refer to a passaged from Nidhi v. Ram
Kripal Sharma, (2017) 5 SCC 640. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that, “the legislations made for dealing with such landlord-
tenant disputes were pro-tenant as the court tends to bend towards
the tenant in order to do justice with the tenant; but in the
process of doing justice the court cannot be overzealous and
forget its duty towards the landlord also as ultimately, it is
the landlord who owns the property and is entitled to
possession of the same when he proves his bona fide beyond
reasonable doubt as it is in the case before this Court.”
Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001
In Gaya
Prasad vs Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 the Hon’ble
http://www.judis.nic.in
26
Supreme Court held that the crucial date for deciding as to bona
fide requirement of landlord is the date of his application for
eviction. The litigation continued for 23 years and during that
period the son of the landlord joined Provincial Medical Service and
was posted at different places. The Court refused to take notice of
the subsequent event holding that the crucial date was the date of
filing of the eviction petition.