Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.77 seconds)
Raghaba Chandra Das vs Bipin Behari Mohapatra And Ors. on 8 August, 1988 cites

H. Mohammad Sikandar vs Badrunissa Bibi And Ors. on 4 April, 1975

I must hold that the proposition of the Full Bench in Mohammad Sikandar's case (AIR 1975 Orissa 130) to the effect that Section 7(4) does not prohibit eviction from a house for the purpose of dismantling the same for its use as a vacant site if it is required in good faith, has been too widely enunciated, particularly when the Full Bench had itself disapproved the doubt expressed in Sadhana Ausadhalaya's case (1973-39 Cut LT 946) whether a landlord could claim demolition so as to use the vacant surface for the purposes of such as, a lawn, a badminton court or a swimming pool.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

T. Bhagirao vs K. Panduranga Subudhi And Ors. on 8 March, 1977

In T. Bhagirao v. Panduranga Subudhi (1977) 43 Cut LT 465 : (AIR 1977 Orissa210), eviction was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlord wanted the house for the purpose of his profession after remodelling and making it suitable for that purpose. The Controller had accepted the plea of the landlord, but the appellate authority accepted the requirement of the landlord only for remodelling of the house and maintained the order of eviction. The High Court set aside the order on the view that the requirement of the landlord in good faith was a pre-condition for bringing the case within the ambit of this provision.
Orissa High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mrs Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha And Ors. vs Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan And Anr. on 11 November, 1982

13. Mr. G. Rath, however, vehemently refuted this argument of Mr. Patra on the ground that it was not a case of "no evidence" and all that it could be said might be a case of "insufficient evidence". The learned counsel further submitted that on the evidence which was ex parte in nature, the authorities have believed the case of the landlord after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances governing him and, therefore, this court was not entitled in the writ jurisdiction to interfere with the same. He referred to three decisions of the Supreme Court, namely,-Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte, AIR 1975 SC 1297, Mrs: Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha v. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan, AIR 1983 SC 535 and Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaquim, AIR 1984 SC 38.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Satyapriya Mohapatra vs Ashok Pandit And Ors. on 5 September, 1984

These decisions go to support the contention of Mr. Rath, and this Court following the decision in Satyapriya Mohapatra v. Ashok Pandi, AIR 1985 Orissa 187 also held that a concurrent finding of fact in a case under the Act, if not perverse, could not be reversed by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction and that this court could not correct errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it. The same view was reiterated in Mohanlal Modi v. Jadunath Mohapatra, AIR 1985 Orissa 236. I find myself in respectful agreement with the view expressed by this Court in these decisions.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Kasi Rout vs Mahammad Saleh And Ors. on 3 April, 1972

The authorities have repeatedly said that the word "requires" involves something more than a mere wish and an element of need to some extent at least, and the "to require" is not the same thing as "to desire". The landlord must show certain circumstances or facts proving some needs or necessities. See Kasi Rout v. Mohammed Saleh (1972) 38 Cut LT 532 : (AIR 1972 Orissa 245). The Supreme Court in Mst.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next