Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.32 seconds)
Nazeer Hussain vs Farooq Ali on 5 February, 2004 cites

Lingala Kondala Rao vs Vootukuri Narayana Rao on 21 November, 2002

In the light of the said legal position and the ratio laid down in the decision referred Lingala Kondaia Rao v. Vootukuri Narayana Rao, (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the approach of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained since the relief on the ground of bona fide personal requirement was negatived on the ground of the landlord running the same business along with his brother. This cannot be a ground on which the relief can be negatived. It is needless to say that all the other incidental findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in this regard also cannot be sustained. Hence, the landlord is bound to succeed on the ground of bona fide personal requirement though he cannot succeed on the ground of acts of waste. Accordingly the impugned order of the Appellate Authority so far as it relates to the bona fide personal requirement is concerned, is hereby set aside and the order made in RC No. 1748/86 by the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad is hereby restored.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Super Forgings & Steels (Sales) Pvt. Ltd vs Thyabally Rasuljee (Dead) Through ... on 1 December, 1994

12. The next question that survives for consideration is whether the Appellate Authority is justified in reversing the order of eviction granted by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the landlord. The fact that Nazratunnisa was the original owner of the petition schedule premises and this tenant was a tenant under her is not in controversy and the present landlord claims to have become the absolute owner of the said property by virtue of oral gift made by his mother. It is no doubt true that there was some controversy and the suit OS.No. 1061/84 was filed and a compromise was arrived at and the same is clear from the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and also the admission made by RW1 and Exs.P1 to P3. Certain contentions had been advanced by both the Counsel on the aspect whether a co-owner can maintain an eviction petition. Reliance had been placed on K. Lakshmanarao and Ors. v. Gulam Habeeb Khan and Ors., , Super Forgings and Steel (Sales) Private Limited v. Thyabally Rasuljee (dead) through LRs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 26 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

Vidya Bai And Anr. vs Shankerlal And Anr. on 24 September, 1987

It is no doubt true that the relevant provision in the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 appears to be in pari materia and substantially the same. As already stated supra, the decision referred Lingala Kondala Rao v. Vootukuri Narayana Rao, (supra) is not only the one decided under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, but it also referred to a three Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court rendered in Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah and Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co., and ultimately a view was expressed that the view of the law taken by this Court in Smt. Vidya Bai and Anr. v. Shankerlal and Anr., , becomes a doubtful authority.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 23 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Mahboob Sahab vs Syed Ismail & Ors on 23 March, 1995

Elaborate arguments had been advanced relating to the aspect that the plea that by virtue of oral gift made by Nazrathunnisa, the landlord became owner of the premises and hence he is the landlord within the meaning of the Act was not specifically pleaded. Reliance also had been placed on Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail, , in relation to the essential conditions to be satisfied in the case of gift under Muslim Law. I had gone through the findings recorded by both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Reasons in detail had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller that in certain other proceedings specific plea relating to the oral gift had been taken, but however the said plea was not specifically pleaded in the present RC. It is also pertinent to note that one of his brothers filed a suit for partition O.S. No. 1061/84 of the file of II Additional Judge in relation to the properties of the mother Nazrathunnisa. The said suit ended in compromise. Apart from Exs.P1 to P3, certified copy of the decretal order judgment of the compromise, certified copy of the compromise memo in OS.No. 1061/84, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and also the admission made by RW1 in this regard would clearly establish this aspect. Hence, the mere omission to plead oral gift, in my considered opinion, would not alter the situation in any way. It is needless to say that the rent control proceedings are summary proceeding and pleadings cannot be strictly construed in such proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 138 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next