Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.85 seconds)Section 13 in The Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Rehman Jeo Wangnoo vs Ram Chand And Ors on 7 December, 1977
Reliance was placed on the judgment in Rahman's case, L. Rs. of Ibrahim's case, Bharatpur Wholesale Sahakari Uphbhokta Bhandar Ltd.'s case.
Ramesh Chandra Kesherwani vs Dwarika Prasad And Anr. on 11 April, 2002
In Ramesh Chandra's case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has of course held that the question of partial eviction could be decided by the Appellate Court instead of remanding the matter, and has not disturbed the partial eviction, as ordered by the learned courts below, on equitable considerations. Suffice it to say that in the present case the learned lower Appellate Court has discussed the question of partial eviction, arid relying upon the defendant's positive statement about his requirement to be not satisfying by the part of premises, has decided the question against the appellant. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the question has not been decided, and consequently, this judgment does not help the appellant. The correctness of the decision of the learned lower Appellate Court shall obviously be considered by me at appropriate place.
Anandi Lal vs Smt. Sarju Devi And Ors. on 17 August, 2000
It was also contended, that the judgments in Bhanwarlal's case and Anandi Lal's case do lay down the law correctly, and are applicable on all the fours to the present case. Then, supporting the findings on the question of subletting it was contended, that M/s. Asuji Kewalchand and M/s. Asuji Bharatkumar are two different registered partnership firms, and simply because Sohanraj is one of the common partners, it cannot be said that it does not amount to subletting.
S. Sanyal vs Gian Chand on 14 September, 1967
Then, in para 26, the object of Section 14(2) of the Act was considered, by giving an illustration of possible consequence, in absence of the provision of Section 14(2), and it was held, that Section 14(2) is required to be read and understood in the light of the law, as propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Section Sanyal's case and Habibunnisa's case, in a reasonable and rational manner, and then in para 28 it was held, that the real object of enactment would be achieved, being of protecting avoidable eviction of the tenant, from the entire premises, and also satisfying the needs of the landlord, by evicting the tenant from the part of the premises only, viz. in a manner, so as to proceed free from the fetters of indivisibility of the contract of letting. It was held, that the landlord is best judge of his requirement, and once he establishes his requirement, and court finds the requirement to be reasonable, as well as bonafide, he is, thereafter not be subjected to any further rationing, under the garb of provisions of Section 14(2), 'partial eviction', simply because, somehow the tenant is continuing there, even at the cost of seeing, that the plaintiff is simply able to survive, by compressing his proved reasonable and bonafide requirement. It was held, that if considered from the stand point of the contract of tenancy being permitted to be divisible, by virtue of Section 14(2), the landlord's proved requirement can be satisfied, without making him to suffer any hardship, by passing a decree for partial eviction, or may be circumstances like the one illustrated in para 24, where no hardship would be caused to the tenant, by ordering partial eviction, the Court is to divide, or break, the contract of letting, and pass a decree in respect of such part only. It was further held, that the provision is not required to be stretched to an extent, which may look unreasonable, if not yield absurd results, and in any case, which may unimaginably increase the miseries of the landlord. It is to be grasped, that to appreciate the requirement of the landlord, so also of the hardship of the tenant, a reasonable, and most practicable view is required to be taken, if the judicial system means to maintain public faith in the Justice Delivery System.
Habibunnlsa Begum And Ors vs G. Doraikannu Chettiar (D) By Lrs. And ... on 17 November, 1999
Then, in para 26, the object of Section 14(2) of the Act was considered, by giving an illustration of possible consequence, in absence of the provision of Section 14(2), and it was held, that Section 14(2) is required to be read and understood in the light of the law, as propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Section Sanyal's case and Habibunnisa's case, in a reasonable and rational manner, and then in para 28 it was held, that the real object of enactment would be achieved, being of protecting avoidable eviction of the tenant, from the entire premises, and also satisfying the needs of the landlord, by evicting the tenant from the part of the premises only, viz. in a manner, so as to proceed free from the fetters of indivisibility of the contract of letting. It was held, that the landlord is best judge of his requirement, and once he establishes his requirement, and court finds the requirement to be reasonable, as well as bonafide, he is, thereafter not be subjected to any further rationing, under the garb of provisions of Section 14(2), 'partial eviction', simply because, somehow the tenant is continuing there, even at the cost of seeing, that the plaintiff is simply able to survive, by compressing his proved reasonable and bonafide requirement. It was held, that if considered from the stand point of the contract of tenancy being permitted to be divisible, by virtue of Section 14(2), the landlord's proved requirement can be satisfied, without making him to suffer any hardship, by passing a decree for partial eviction, or may be circumstances like the one illustrated in para 24, where no hardship would be caused to the tenant, by ordering partial eviction, the Court is to divide, or break, the contract of letting, and pass a decree in respect of such part only. It was further held, that the provision is not required to be stretched to an extent, which may look unreasonable, if not yield absurd results, and in any case, which may unimaginably increase the miseries of the landlord. It is to be grasped, that to appreciate the requirement of the landlord, so also of the hardship of the tenant, a reasonable, and most practicable view is required to be taken, if the judicial system means to maintain public faith in the Justice Delivery System.