Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.33 seconds)Section 11 in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1949 [Entire Act]
Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1949
Padmanabhan Nair vs Thiruvangat Devaki Brhamani Amma on 16 January, 2009
This decision is seen followed in the decision
reported in Padmanabhan Nair v. Devaki Brahmani
Amma (2009 (1) KLT 485.
Chandran vs Sunil Kumar on 3 August, 2004
Thus
R.C.R.NO.14 OF 2011
: 13 :
we find that Chandran v. Sunil Kumar (cited supra) is not
applicable to the present case as it is rendered in a different
context under different sections, particularly in the
backdrop of subsequent events having fundamental impact
on the 'bona fde need'.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
A.M.Varghese vs Mammen K.Cherian on 5 February, 2009
On the other hand, the decision
reported in Shaji Varghese v. Cherian (cited supra) is
aptly applicable to the facts of the present case as the
overwhelming evidence shows that parties have gone to
trial with full knowledge about the protection under second
proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act and no prejudice was
caused to the landlord in the absence of explicit positive
pleadings. Lack of positive averments explicitly claiming
protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) and
negativing pleadings averred by the landlord in the context
of that proviso in the counter statement are not fatal and
denial of the tenant in the counter statement is sufficient as
there is a statutory bar against granting of eviction, unless
the requirements under the second proviso is found in
favour of the tenant.
Prasannan vs Haris on 24 February, 2005
We also notice of the decision
reported in Prasannan v. Haris (2005 (2) KLT 365) wherein
a Division Bench of this Court held that subsequent events
having fundamental impact over the need alleged can also
be taken into consideration. But the parties have no such
case of subsequent events having 'fundamental impact' on the
availability of alternate buildings after the institution of the
rent control petition and no amendment was made by the
parties in their pleadings in this respect.