Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Nisamudheen vs Sri.Kunjumon on 6 March, 2024 cites

Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) By Lrs vs Sardar Dastur Schools Trust & Ors on 14 February, 2005

In Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardur Dastur Schools Trust [(2005) 2 SCC 476] the Apex Court reiterated that, as laid down in Shiv Samp Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to 6 R.C.(Rev).No. 62 of 2022 be natural, real, sincere and honest. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 85 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999

In Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardur Dastur Schools Trust [(2005) 2 SCC 476] the Apex Court reiterated that, as laid down in Shiv Samp Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to 6 R.C.(Rev).No. 62 of 2022 be natural, real, sincere and honest. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 974 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

T.P.Muhammedali vs T.P.Jameela on 22 February, 2019

In Gireeshbabu T.P. v. Jameela and others [2021 (5) KHC SN 30], a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party, held that, in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 11(3) of the Act, a bona fide need must 7 R.C.(Rev).No. 62 of 2022 be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire of the landlord in contradistinction with a mere pretext on the part of the landlord for evicting the tenant, claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. Once, on the basis of the materials on record, the landlord has succeeded in showing that the need to occupy the premises is natural, real, sincere and honest, and not a ruse to evict the tenant from the said premises, the landlord will certainly be entitled for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act but, of course, subject to the first and second provisos to Section 11(3).
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 26 - S Ninan - Full Document

Chethil Tharemmal Rasheeda vs Peedikayilakath Muhammad on 3 November, 2021

17. Following various earlier decisions of this Court, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Chethil Tharemmal Rasheeda v. Peedikayilakath Muhammad [2021 (6) KHC 723], in which one among us, [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, that the burden to prove the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is on the tenant.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

Sunny Padamadan Rafael @ Sunny ... vs Vijaya Shenoy on 12 November, 2018

4. It has to be stated at the outset that the trial court, as well as the Appellate Authority outreached their authority and harped upon extraneous considerations in arriving at conclusions on the basis of unfounded assumptions and personal conceptions. It was none of the concern of the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority to fix the age limit for the conduct of paint business by the landlord's father. In the absence of any medical evidence pointing to the physical or intellectual incapability of the landlord's father, the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority were not expected to assume that the landlord's father might not be able to conduct paint 4 R.C.(Rev).No. 62 of 2022 business, as sought for in the Rent control petition. So also, the opinion expressed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority about the improbability of a retired Government High School Teacher at the age of 83 years resorting to paint business, was totally unwarranted. It is apposite to state here that this Court had observed in Sunny Padamadan Rafael v. Vijaya Shenoy [2019 (2) KLT SN 12], that old age or affluency cannot be a ground to doubt bona fide need. In the above case, this Court had upheld the eviction in favour of a widow, aged 63 years, who wanted to carry on the business of hardwares in the leasehold building.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - K Harilal - Full Document
1