Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
12. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, it would be opt to understand as to what is meant by the terms "bona fide". The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta reported in 1999 (6) SCC 222 held as under:-
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
In Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, reported in 1998 (8) SCC 119, the Apex Court held that the Authority considering the requirement of the landlord should not proceed on assumption that the landlords requirement should not proceed on the assumption that the landlords requirement is not bona fide when a landlord shows a prima facie case a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide is available to be drawn. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
M/S.Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co.Ltd vs Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors on 4 October, 2005
14. The above legal position has further been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd vs Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. reported in 2003 (8) SCC 252, case of Badrinarayan Chemical Bhutada Vs. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada reported in 2003 (2) SCC 320.
Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada vs Govindram Ramgopal Mundada on 15 January, 2003
14. The above legal position has further been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd vs Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. reported in 2003 (8) SCC 252, case of Badrinarayan Chemical Bhutada Vs. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada reported in 2003 (2) SCC 320.
Mohd. Ayub & Anr vs Mukesh Chand on 5 January, 2012
In the case of Mohd. Ayub & another Vs. Mukesh Chand reported in 2012 (2) SCC 155 relied upon by learned counsel for the landlord/ respondent.
Hasmat Rai & Anr vs Raghunath Prasad on 28 April, 1981
9. Shri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner has assailed the orders of the Prescribed Authority as also of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the learned Prescribed Authority without considering the evidence on record allowed the release application. The Appellate Authority also committed the same mistake even though it proceeded to take on record the additional evidence adduced by the tenant/petitioner by allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It is contended that the landlord/respondent was possessed with adequate alternate vacant accommodation which was suitable to satisfy the need set up but the Court below failed to consider the evidence and proceeded to allow the release application. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1981 (3) SCC 103 (Hasmat Rai and another versus Raghunath Prasad) to buttress the argument that subsequent events that take place during the pendency of the proceedings are required to be taken into consideration for assessing the bona fide need of the landlord which must continue to exist till final determination of the case.
M.M. Quasim vs Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors on 7 April, 1981
In M.M. |Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1113 the Apex Court has held that the landlord does not have an unfettered right to choose the premises but merely showing that the landlord has some other vacant premises in his possession may not be sufficient to negative the landlord claim if the vacant premises were not suitable for the purpose for which the landlord required the premises.
Ravikul Bansal vs Sri Gauri Shankar Prajapti on 10 December, 2020
3. The instant writ petition, at the instance of the tenant/petitioner, has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 6.1.2024 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Banda in Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2022 as also the judgment and order dated 24.5.2022 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Banda in Rent Case No. 5 of 2018 (RaviKul Bansal versus Gauri Shankar Prajapati).
1