Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.35 seconds)Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Companies Act, 1956
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.J. Ebenezer vs Velayudhan & Ors on 11 December, 1997
In the case of S.J. Ebenezer Vs. Velayudhan and others- (1998)1 SCC 633, the facts were that the tenant resisted the petition for eviction filed against him before the Rent Controller. The stand of the landlord was that the tenant committed default and the rented premises were required for business. The Rent Controller found that the pleadings in the petition were vague and the premises already in possession of the landlord was sufficient and that there was no need to seek eviction of the appellant from the suit premises. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed and after full trial the suit was dismissed holding that no default was committed and there was no bonafide need of the building in question for the occupation of the landlord as the landlord has not faced a situation requiring immediate eviction from the building in his occupation. On appeal before the Appellate Authority, Trivendrum, the same was allowed and eviction was ordered. A statutory revision was preferred to the District Court, Trivendrum and the District Court reversed the judgments of the appellate authority and restored the order of Rent Controller dismissing the petition for eviction. Against the order of of the District Court, the landlord preferred a revision to the High Court which was dismissed on the ground that no second revision lies to the High Court. Thereafter, the landlord preferred a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the High Court vide its judgment dated 3.10.1991 allowed the revision and up-set the order of the District Court resulting in the order of eviction of the appellant-tenant. Thereafter, the matter was challenged by way of preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court finding that the High Court order will show that it has substituted its view in place of the view taken by the statutory authority which is not within the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been observed that initially the ground on which the application for eviction was presented before the Rent Controller is not available to the landlord as the acquisition initiated in the year 1987 must be deemed to have been either given up or lapsed due to efflux of time. The Hon'ble Apex Court, thus, allowed the appeal and set aside the order and restored the order of Rent Controller.
Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001
In the case of Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava- 2001(2) SCC 604, It has been observed that 'we cannot forget that while considering the bonafides of the need of the landlord the crucial date is the date of petition.
Ramesh Kumar vs Kesho Ram on 30 September, 1991
In the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram- (1992) Supp (2) SCC 623,a two-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court (M.N. Venkatachaliah, J., as he then was, and N.M. Kasliwal, J.) pointed out that the normal rule is that rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined as they were when the lis commenced and the only exception is that the court is not precluded from moulding the reliefs appropriately in consideration of subsequent events provided such events had an impact on those rights and obligations.
Kamleshwar Prasad vs Pradumanju Agrawal (Dead) By Lrs on 2 April, 1997
In the case of Kamleshwar Prasad Vs. Pradumanju Agarwal (1997)4 SCC 413, it has been observed that the crucial date normally is the date of filing the petition. In that case, a two-Judge Bench (K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanak, JJ) has held that even the subsequent event of death of the landlord who wanted to start a business in the tenanted premises is not sufficient to dislodge the bonafide need established by him earlier. It has further been observed:
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor & General Traders on 18 March, 1975
It is now well settled that the corporate veil can in certain situations be pierced or lifted. The principle behind the doctrine is a changing concept and it is expanding its horizon as was held in State of U.P. Vs.Renusagar Power Co.-AIR 1988 SC 1737. The ratio of the said decision clearly suggests that whenever a corporate entity is abused for an unjust and inequitable purpose, the court would not hesitate to lift the veil and look into the realities so as to identify the persons who are guilty and liable therefore.