Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.23 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada vs Govindram Ramgopal Mundada on 15 January, 2003
33. The issue of partial eviction of the tenanted premises has
been considered by the Apex Court in case of Badri Narayan
Chunilal Bhutada Vs. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada
(supra) and held that "It is expected of the parties to raise
necessary pleading and the court to frame an issue based on the
pleadings so as to enable parties to adduce evidence and bring on
record such relevant material as would enable the court forming
an opinion on the issue as to comparative hardship and
consistently with such finding whether a partial eviction would
meet the ends of justice. Even if no issue has been framed, the
court may discharge its duty by taking into consideration such
material as may not be available on record."
Krishna Kumar Rastogi vs Sumitra Devi on 20 August, 2014
24. The proposition of law and criteria to adjudge the bonafide
necessity and hardship, as observed by the Supreme Court in case
of Mohd. Ayub (supra) has been endorsed in subsequent
judgment in case of Krishna Kumar Rastogi Vs. Sumitra Devi
[(2014)9 SCC 309].
Ram Dass vs Ishwar Chander And Others on 9 May, 1988
It is held that bonafide need
should be genuine, honest, conceived in good faith and may not
be a pretext to evict the tenant or only for increasing the rent in
[Ram Dass Vs. Ishwar Chander (1988)3 SCC 131].
Siddalingamma And Anr vs Mamtha Shenoy on 18 October, 2001
In Siddalingamma Vs. Mamtha Shenoy [(2001)8 SCC
561] it was held that while determination comes of eviction of
tenant an approach either too liberal or too conservative or
pedantic must be guarded against, if landlord wishes to live with
comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or
compel him to squeeze himself and dwell in lesser premises so as
to protect the tenant's continued occupation in tenanted premises.
Anil Bajaj & Anr vs Vinod Ahuja on 8 May, 2014
27. It is well settled law that a tenant take a premises from the
landlord to conduct his business or for the purpose of residence, it
is always choice of landlord to choose premises for his business or
residence (reference can be have of Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja
(2014)15 SCC 610].
Shakuntala Bai & Ors vs Narayan Das & Ors on 5 May, 2004
In case of Shakuntala Bai Vs. Narayan Das [(2004)5
SCC 772] while dealing with Madhya Pradesh Accommodation
Control Act, 1961 it was observed that there is no warrant for
interpreting the Rent Control legislation in such a manner, the
basic object of which is to save harassment of tenants from
unscrupulous landlords. The object is not to deprive the landlords
of their properties for all times to come.
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008
Maharashtra Vs. Super Max International Private Limited
[(2009)9 SCC 772] and it has been held that "we reaffirm the
views expressed in Satyawati Sharma (supra) and emphasise
the need for a more balanced and objective approach to the
relationship between the landlord and tenant. This is not to say
that the Court should lean in favour of the landlord but merely
that there is no longer any room for the assumption that all
tenants, as a class, are in dire circumstances and in desperate
need of the Court's protection under all circumstances."
Mohinder Kumar Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 18 September, 1985
"12. Before proceeding further we consider it necessary to
obsrve that there has been a definite shift in the court's
approach while interpreting the rent control legislation. An
analysis of the judgments of 1950s to early 1990s would
indicate that in majority of cases the courts heavily leaned
in favour of an interpretation which would benefit the
tenant--Mohinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
[(1985)4 SCC 221] Prabhakaran Nair Vs. State of
T.N. [(1987)4 SCC 238], D.C. Bhatia Vs. Union of
India [(1995)1 SCC 104] and C.N. Rudramurthy Vs.
K. Barkathulla Khan [(1998)8 SCC 275]. In these and
other cases, the court consistently held that the paramount
object of every rent control legislation is to provide
safeguard for tenants against exploitation by landlords who
seek to take undue advantage of the pressing need for
accommodation of a large number of people looking for a
house on rent for residence or business in the background
of acute scarcity thereof. However, a different trend is
clearly discernible in the later judgments."