Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)
Dr. Sakuntala Sharma vs Mohan Kr. Agarwal on 26 July, 2013 cites

Ganpat Ram Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Gayatri Devi on 17 July, 1987

54. In view of filing of the above affidavits, I am inclined to feel in these cases that the landlady may be able to prove that her need is bona fide. As already observed by me by referring the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganpat Ram Sharma vs. Gayatri Devi : (1987) 3 SCC 576, rent control legislation is a welfare legislation both for landlord/landlady and tenant. In that while benefitting the tenants by preventing their eviction on frivolous grounds and by controlling the rent payable by them, it benefits the landlady by assuring them of eviction upon existence of a valid ground. I am of the view that considerations of justice demand that the landlady be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence of whatever nature as she wants for substantiating that the bona fide needs the building for commencement of Nursing Home with the assistance of her sister and brother-in-law. I do not think any legal prejudice will be occasioned to the tenants by affording such 47 opportunity as they are continuing in possession of the building without any modification regarding the rate of rent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 94 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Rajla Devi & Ors vs Tashi Tsh. Bhutia on 2 May, 2013

43. I now come to the most important ground - own occupation of the landlady. The rival pleadings raised by the parties and the evidence adduced on both sides in this context is re-apprised by me. I keep in mind the ratio emerging from various decisions cited before me by the counsel on both the sides. I must notice immediately that almost all the decisions cited before me by the learned counsel on either side were rendered in the context of other State laws in India and not in the context of the Notification No. 6326- 35 600-H&W-B dated 14.04.1949 which is the relevant law. I had in my judgment in Rajala Devi & others vs. Tashi Tshering Bhutia (RFA No. 01/2012) observed that the state of affairs pertaining to the rent control legislation here is quite unsatisfactory. A copy of the above judgment has been provided to the State Government hoping that the Government will come out with a comprehensive legislation so that there will be more clarity and specificity regarding the rights and liabilities of landlords and tenants in the State of Sikkim. Even though the decisions cited before me (most of them are the decisions of the apex Court) were rendered in the context of provisions in other local legislations they have to be considered relevant as concept of bona fide need in rent control jurisprudence has been expatiated in most of them. It is well settled that bona fide need does not mean an absolute pressing necessity without accomplishing which the landlord or the landlady cannot pull on even for a moment. Bona fide need means nothing other than a reasonable need or requirement involving an element of necessity. In other words, when a claim of requirement of the landlord for bona fide occupation of the tenanted building is raised what the courts are expected to enquire is as to whether the landlord is projecting a reasonable need involving an element of necessity or whether the need has been projected merely as ruse for evicting the tenants.
Sikkim High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - P C Kuriakose - Full Document

Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) By Lrs vs Sardar Dastur Schools Trust & Ors on 14 February, 2005

Arguing that while deciding whether a particular need is bona fide or not, the Court is expected to have a practical approach instructed by the realities of life, Mr. Rai submitted that the question to be asked is whether the need is a natural, real, sincere and honest and in the circumstance, which attend on the case and, on this proposition, Mr. Rai relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Adil Jamshed Frenchman (Dead) by LRS vs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and others : (2005) 2 SCC 476. In support of the proposition that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the tenant has no right to dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he 18 should do and what he should not do in his building.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 85 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

Siddalingamma And Anr vs Mamtha Shenoy on 18 October, 2001

411. According to Mr. Rai even though a survey of decisions on rent control jurisprudence will indicate that the Court generally leans in favour of the tenant, when it comes to decisions rendered in the context of the ground of bona fide occupation, it will be seen that the Courts have equal sympathy for the landlord and the tenant. For this 19 proposition Mr. Rai referred to a judgement of the Supreme Court in Siddalingamma and another vs. Mamtha Shenoy : (2001) 8 SCC 561.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 187 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

S.J. Ebenezer vs Velayudhan & Ors on 11 December, 1997

Mr. Moulik relied also on the judgement of the Supreme Court in S.J. Ebeneser vs. Velaudhan and others : (1998) 1 SCC 633. Referring to paragraph 10 of the judgment the learned senior counsel submitted that while considering the question of bona fides, what is necessary to bear in mind is that mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough. The desire should be tested objectively and not subjectively. The burden also lies upon the landlord to establish that he needs the building genuinely. It will be found by this Court also that as was found by the District Court that the need projected here is not a bona fide one.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 31 - K Venkataswami - Full Document
1   2 Next