Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery And Co on 7 January, 2000
In the case of Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co., reported in AIR 2000 SC 534, the Apex Court has held that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter.
Shamahad Ahmad & Ors vs Tilak Raj Bajaj (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 11 September, 2008
Mere fact that landlord is a rich and affluent person will make no difference as held in Shamshad Ahmad and others v. Tilak Raj Bajaj and others, 2008 (3) ARC 532.
Om Prakash And Ors vs Smt. Sunhari Devi And Ors on 2 March, 1993
In Om Prakash & Ors. v. Sunhari Devi (Smt.) & Ors. [JT 1993 (3) SC 641 ; 1993 (2) SCC 397], a similar question came up for consideration before this Court. There an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the present Act was filed by the landlords against the tenants on the ground that they bona fide required the tenanted premises, a shop, for their own use. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the eviction petition holding that the applicant's requirement was not bona fide and greater hardship would be caused to the tenants than to the landlords. The landlords filed an appeal and the appellate authority allowed the same holding that the requirement of the landlords was genuine and bona fide. It also recorded a finding in favour of the landlords on the question of comparative hardship.
Ranjeet Singh vs Ravi Prakash on 18 March, 2004
In Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash [JT 2004 (4) SC 127; 2004 (3) SCC 682], again this Court while interpreting the provisions of the Act in question, held that the High Court, while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, cannot act like an appellate Court and re-appreciate or revaluate the evidence while exercising certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction. Only a patent error which did not require establishment by lengthy and complicated arguments or by long drawn process of reasoning is amenable to certiorari jurisdiction. If two opinions were reasonably possible, the finding arrived at one way or the other by the appellate authority, cannot be disturbed.
Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978
In Mst. Bega Begum & Ors. v. Abdul Ahad Khan (dead) by LRs. & Ors. [1979 (1) SCC 273], this Court held that rent control laws must be construed reasonably. They should be interpreted in such a way as to achieve the object of enabling landlord to evict tenant where the statute grants such right in favour of landlord.
Muni Lal And Ors. vs Prescribed Authority And Ors. on 20 September, 1976
In the case of Muni Lal and others v. Prescribed Authority and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 29 while dealing with Section 21 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, the Apex Court held that It is not for the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to reapprise the evidence and come to its own conclusion which may be different from that reached by the District Judge or the Prescribed Authority.
Suresh Chand Sharma vs Nand Kumar Kamal on 30 January, 2013
The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Suresh Chand Sharma v. Nand Kumar Kamal, reported in 2013 (3) ADJ 484 has held that as follows:
R.C. Tamrakar And Anr vs Nidi Lekha on 16 October, 2001
Similarly, in R.C. Tamarkar v. Nidi Lekha, AIR 2001 SC 3806, the Court in para 10 and 11 said: