Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.26 seconds)Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery And Co on 7 January, 2000
In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. [(2000) 1
SCC 679] it was held that it is the choice of the landlord to choose the
place for the business which is most suitable for him. He has complete
freedom in the matter.
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
[11] Main contention of the landlord petitioners, as stated, is that they
require the vacant possession of the shop held by the tenant in their house for
constructing an approach road to the remaining properties of the family so that an
effective family partition can be brought about. Another ground of the landlord
petitioners is that the building is more than 100 years old which require demolition
and reconstruction for safety of the house inmates. The question which arises for
consideration before this Court is whether the grounds projected by the landlords
constitute the bona fide need of the landlord petitioners for the present purpose.
[12] Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr.
K. Nath, learned advocate appearing for the landlord petitioners. Also heard Mr. A.
Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party tenant.
[13] In the course of his arguments, Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior
advocate having relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs.
Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta reported in (1999) 6 SCC 222 has contended that
when a landlord shows a prima facie case that the requirement of the landlord is
bona fide, a presumption that his requirement is bona fide has to be drawn.
Counsel contends that as it has been viewed by the Apex Court that the bona fides
of the requirement of a landlord can be decided by making an endeavour to see as
to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. Counsel has referred to
paragraph 20 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which reads as under:
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1998) 8 SCC
119] this Court has held that the Rent Controller should not proceed on
the assumption that the landlord‟s requirement is not bona fide. When
the landlord shows a prima facie case a presumption that the
CRP No.31 of 2021
Page - 11 of 18
requirement of the landlord is bona fide is available to be drawn. It is
not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can
adjust adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted
premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement
of the landlord, it is quire unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how
else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
Yadvendra Arya & Anr vs Mukesh Kumar Gupta on 28 November, 2007
[14] Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has also relied on the decision of
the Apex Court in Yadvendra Arya & Anr. vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta reported
in (2008) 2 SCC 144 in which the Apex Court has held that the landlord is the
best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got
complete freedom in the matter. Learned counsel has referred to paragraph 12 of
the judgment which reads as under:
Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978
In Bega Begum & Ors. v. Abdul Ahad Khan [(1979) 1 SCC 273)]
this Court had occasion to deal in detail with the comparative
hardship‟s aspect as follows:
Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007
[16] Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has further relied on the decision
of the Apex Court in Rishi Kumar Govil vs. Maqsoodan & Ors. reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 465 wherein the Apex Court has reiterated that landlord is the best
judge of his requirement and courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to
how and in what manner he should live. The bona fide personal need is a question
of fact and should not be normally interfered with. The views of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in paragraph 19 of the judgment is as under:
Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001
In Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava [(2001) 2
SCC 604] it was held that the need of the landlord is to be seen on the
date of application for release.
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
"32. It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise
of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is
equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to
keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their
authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held, that
though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised
sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in
this respect can be placed on a catena of judgments of this
Court including the ones in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors.
vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [(1960) 1 SCR 890], Bathutmal
Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R.Tarta & Anr. [(1975) 1 SCC 858], M/s
India Pipe Fitting Co. vs. Fakruddin M. A. Baker & Anr. [(1977) 4 SCC
587], Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde[(1978) 2 SCC 573],
Mrs. Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha & Ors. vs. Janardhan Mahadeo
Kalan & Anr. [(1982) 3 SCC 514], Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs.
Ashalata S. Guram [(1986) 4 SCC 447], Venkatlal G. Pittie and another
vs. Bright Bros (Pvt.) Ltd. [(1987) 3 SCC 558], State of
Maharashtra vs. Milind & Ors. [(2001) 1 SCC 4], State Through Special
Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afshan Guru and Others
[(2003) 6 SCC 641], Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash19, Shamshad
Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) Through LRs.
India Pipe Fitting Co vs Fakruddin M.A. Baker And Anr on 4 November, 1977
"32. It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise
of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is
equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to
keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their
authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held, that
though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised
sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in
this respect can be placed on a catena of judgments of this
Court including the ones in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors.
vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [(1960) 1 SCR 890], Bathutmal
Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R.Tarta & Anr. [(1975) 1 SCC 858], M/s
India Pipe Fitting Co. vs. Fakruddin M. A. Baker & Anr. [(1977) 4 SCC
587], Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde[(1978) 2 SCC 573],
Mrs. Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha & Ors. vs. Janardhan Mahadeo
Kalan & Anr. [(1982) 3 SCC 514], Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs.
Ashalata S. Guram [(1986) 4 SCC 447], Venkatlal G. Pittie and another
vs. Bright Bros (Pvt.) Ltd. [(1987) 3 SCC 558], State of
Maharashtra vs. Milind & Ors. [(2001) 1 SCC 4], State Through Special
Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afshan Guru and Others
[(2003) 6 SCC 641], Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash19, Shamshad
Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) Through LRs.