Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.72 seconds)The Punjab Rent Act, 1995
Section 5 in The Punjab Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
Co, Ltd., (1998)8 S.C.C. 119 it was held that the
High Court while exercising the jurisdiction can
reappraise the evidence only for a limited purpose
for ascertaining as to whether the conclusion arrived
at by the fact-finding court is wholly unreasonable.
A perusal of sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act
shows that the power of the High Court to revise an
order is not an appellate power, but it is also true
that it is not akin to power exercisable under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is no
doubt true that the High Court would be justified in
interfering with the order passed by the appellate
CR NO.6726 OF 2014 (O&M) -7-
authority if the legality or propriety of such order
demands such interference. We are, therefore, of the
view that it is not permissible for the High Court to
reassess or reappraise the evidence to arrive at a
finding contrary to the finding of fact recorded by
the Court below."
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
"Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act empowers
the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction
for the purpose of satisfying itself if an order passed
by the Rent Controller or the appellate authority is
in accordance with law. The question that arises for
consideration is whether the High Court in its
revisional jurisdiction can reassess or re-evaluate
the evidence only to come to a different finding
than what has been recorded by the Court below,
this Court in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr.
Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999)6 S.C.C. 222 held, that
the High Court cannot enter into appreciation or
reappreciation of evidence merely because it is
inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it
were a Court of facts. However, the High Court is
obliged to test the order of the Rent Controller on
the touchstone of whether such an order is in
accordance with law. For the limited purpose the
High Court would be justified in reappraising the
evidence.
Harwant Kaur And Ors. vs Harinam Sankirtan Mandal And Anr. on 26 May, 1972
In the case of
Harwant Kaur & others (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court has
observed that a juristic person can also get the premises vacated for its
personal bonafide necessity. In that case, the landlord was a society and
sought the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises for setting
up a school for children. The ejectment of the tenant from the residential
building for the purpose of setting up the school was allowed.
Satyanarayan Agrawal And Anr. And ... vs Smt. Anguri Devi And Ors. on 7 August, 2002
In the case
of Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & another (supra), it was observed that
the definition of the landlord is quite wide and includes the person who
for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a
building whether on his own account or on behalf of another, or on
account or on behalf of or for the benefit of himself and others or as an
agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so
receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building was let to
tenant.
Section 6 in The Punjab Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
1