Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shamahad Ahmad & Ors vs Tilak Raj Bajaj (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 11 September, 2008
In the case of Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. v. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) through Lrs. & Ors., reported in JT 2008 (10) SC 56, the Apex Court while dealing with Section 21 of Act No. 1972 held as follows :
Section 21 in The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
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.
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:
Yadvendra Arya & Anr vs Mukesh Kumar Gupta on 28 November, 2007
In Yadvendra Arya and another v. Mukesh Kumar Verma, 2008 (1) ARC 322, the Court reiterated that the landlord is best judge of his requirement and has got every right to file release application for settling his unemployed son in an independent business and son cannot be forcibly asked to be accommodated with father's business.
Sushila ] vs Iind Addl.District Judge, Banda & Ors on 17 December, 2002
On the question of comparative hardship, the Courts below have observed that petitioner-tenant did not make any attempt to find out any alternative accommodation. This is a relevant aspect to decide question of comparative hardship in favour of landlord and mere long possession of tenant is immaterial, as held in Sushila v. II Additional District Judge, Banda and others (supra).
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
In the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 222, while considering the bonafide requirement of the landlord, the Apex Court has held that the alternative accommodation available to the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come.
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986
Even prior to Chundavarkar case, in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta & Anr. [1975 (1) SCC 858], dealing with supervisory power of a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, Bhagwati, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated: