Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Akash Arora And Ors vs Krishan Kumar Arora on 23 December, 2020 cites

Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998

It is settled principle that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how he can adjust himself as as to which portion of the tenanted premises he is to set up his business. Only a prima facie case is to be taken into consideration by the Rent Controller to draw the presumption that the requirement is bona fide, which has been held by the Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1999(1) PLR 805.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 821 - Full Document

Dattatraya Laxman Kamble vs Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde & Anr on 28 April, 1999

Rather the bona fides of the landlord is clear which has specifically been pleaded and the fact has been admitted by the tenant that there was a shop in possession of father of the respondent who eventually 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2020 01:50:02 ::: CR4989-877-2018 (O&M) -8- expired in the year 2007 and he had to vacate the said shop. The landlord has further waited for almost a period of 5 years before filing the eviction petition in February, 2012 and it has specifically been pleaded that requests had been made to the tenant to vacate the premises but he has not done so which led to the filing of the eviction petition and thus, eviction has rightly been ordered by the Courts below. Lack of bona fide on the part of the landlord cannot be inferred, as has been held by the Apex Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune 1999(4) SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court had allowed the appeal of the landlord as the High Court had came to the conclusion that landlord did not have the necessary experience to start the business of electrical goods. It was held that there was a jurisdictional error in upsetting the factual findings merely by an individual view by the Judge of the High Court about the business venture which was unsupportable in law. The Rent Act further provides that reoccupation of a building can always be asked for by the tenant and he can recover the possession of the building after the shop is vacated if the landlord does not occupy the building. Thus, it is a safeguard which is provided. In such circumstances, the bona fides of the landlord who had retired as Assistant Manager cannot be questioned by the tenant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 204 - Full Document

Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors vs Naveen Maheshwari on 18 November, 2009

Reliance is also rightly been placed upon the judgment in Uday Shankar Upadhyay (supra) wherein also, it has been held that shops and businesses on the ground-floor being better located therefore, it is not for the Court to tell as to which floor the landlord should do his business. The argument, thus, raised that the nephew was keeping the first-floor of the shop in dispute and therefore, the landlord should shift there, is without any basis. Merely because the tenant is carrying business since 1995 would not entitle him to continue in the premises for all times to come.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 201 - Full Document

Inderjit Sharma vs Moti Lal on 28 April, 2009

Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the landlord had stated that he had not occupied any non-residential unit and had not vacated any such type of premises or had sold any such building within the Municipal Council, Kapurthala. It is, accordingly, contended that as per the affidavit filed by him and in the cross-examination he had admitted that he had vacated another premises in April, 2007 and therefore, once he had not come to the Court with clean hands, ejectment application was liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed in Inderjit Sharma Vs. Moti Lal 2009 (4) PLR 85 to contend that once the 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2020 01:50:01 ::: CR4989-877-2018 (O&M) -2- bona fides were not there, ejectment petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is further contended that there was no bona fide necessity since he had retired in the year 2000 and the petition was filed on 15.02.2012 and thus, he did not require the premises in question and in the alternative, space on the first-floor of the shop was also available.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - K Kannan - Full Document
1