Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.49 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978
Mr. Amal Kumar Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that since the appellant/plaintiff no. 2 has to live in
a tenanted premises being a landlord, such accommodation cannot ipso
facto be considered as reasonable and suitable accommodation and relied
on the observation made in paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 in case of Mst.
Bega Begum and others versus Abdul Ahad Khan reported in AIR
1979 SC 272 --
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Easements Act, 1882
Section 13 in The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. [Entire Act]
Amarjit Singh vs Smt. Khatoon Quamarain on 18 November, 1986
Mr. Malay Kumar Bose, learned senior counsel for the
respondents/defendants has submitted that learned Appeal Court below
on taking into account the agreement of sale Exhibit-D rightly held that
the appellants/plaintiffs have no bona fide need for the suit premises for
their own use and occupation, rather, the intention in for sale of the suit
premises to the defendant while allowing the appeal by setting aside the
judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 20 of 1974 by the trial
Court and relied on a decision in case of Amarjit Singh v. Smt.
Khatoon Quamarain reported in AIR 1987 SC 741 in which the
Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the provision of Section 14(1)(c) of
Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) which is pari materia to the provision
under Section 13(ff) of WBPT Act, 1956 the was of the view and held
thus--
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Sushila Devi And Ors. vs Avinash Chandra Jain And Ors. on 19 February, 1987
Yet, learned counsel for the defendant/respondent relied on
observation made in paragraph 3 in case of Smt. Sushila Devi and
others v. Avinash Chandra Jain and others reported in AIR 1987 SC
1150 wherein it has been held thus--
Regional Manager, Apsrtc vs H.S. Sudhindra Aras on 22 September, 2005
Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has relied on a
decision in case of Regional Manager, APSRTC, Medak v. H. S.
Sudhindra Areas reported in AIR 2006 Andhra Pradesh 207
wherein it has been held that a license, once revoked by operation
of law, or act of parties does not get revived, simply because the
license fees is received after such revocation. It would be apt to
take into consideration the observation made in paragraph 7 of the
cited decision which reads thus--
1