Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (1.00 seconds)
Ekbal Hussain vs Binod Kumar Barnwal on 7 October, 2010 cites

M/S.Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co.Ltd vs Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors on 4 October, 2005

Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. V. Vimalabai Prabhulal [(2005) 8 SCC 252] to impress upon this Court that even requirement of extending business also could be taken into account for eviction of tenant. I find force in the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff - opposite party.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 342 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Punit Rai And Anr. vs Mohammad Majid And Ors. on 17 November, 1963

However, the same has been given for the maintenance of the mother herself. The plaintiff has stated that he needs the shop for establishing business therein for the purpose of earning livelihood for the family consisting of his children as well as spouse as he has remained unemployed for long and after partition in the family he would have to earn bread independently. So far the question of the reconstruction of house on account of its being old and dilapidated is concerned the same stands as stated in paragraph no. 7 of the plaint. However, there is no specific denial by the defendant that the house is not in a dilapidated condition, though it is denied to be an old house and the plaintiff intends to reconstruct the same in written statement. It is not specifically stated in his written statement that the plaintiff does not have sufficient means for reconstruction of the concerned shop. A Division Bench of Patna High Court in Punit Rai v. Mohd. Majid reported in AIR 1964 Patna 348 has held that in the absence of specific denial of the averments of the plaint, the same must be assumed to be admitted by the defendant. Thus, this Court is also 14 of the opinion that no error has been committed by the court below in holding that there is landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and the plaintiff is in reasonable need of the concerned shop. The endeavour of the defendant to refute and deny the partition in the family through a pre-litigation case and at the same time also relying upon certain paragraphs of the compromise petition filed therein is also not acceptable. The Court below has also dealt with the issue as to whether the requirement of plaintiff could be fulfilled by partial eviction of the suit property so that the tenant is also not disturbed. It has noticed that the defendant himself has stated that shop is very small and not fit for being business. The court below has come to the conclusion that shop in question, being only 6 feet in width, if divided in equal half, would not be useful for any of the parties for doing business.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1