Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)
Md. Samsul Islam vs Tabbasum Ara on 19 April, 2023 cites

Tip Top And Ors. vs Smt. Indramani Devi on 15 January, 1982

6. On analyzing the impugned judgment as well as material on record and submission made by the parties, the relationship of landlord and tenant is accepted by the defendant Patna High Court C.R. No.253 of 2016(20) dt.19-04-2023 6/7 himself in the written statement as well as in his deposition. Plaintiff had specifically claimed that her husband and her father-in-law is running their business in a tenanted premises and as such they required the suit premises for their business. This fact has been admitted by the defendant. In the said circumstances, the finding of the learned trial court is that the plaintiff had bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises appears to be legal and proper. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this court in Cases of Tip Top and others Vs Smt. Indramani Devi reported in AIR 1982 Patna 190, Smt. Jasbir Kaur @ Raj Rani and Another Vs Rabindra Kumar Yadav reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 386, Hira Lal Das and Another Vs Loknath Newatia reported in 2014 (4) PLJR 476 and Gopal Kumar Khetriwal @ Gopal Khetriwal Vs Smt. Geeta Devi Dokani and others reported in 2017 (4) PLJR 59. The defendant nowhere pleaded that the requirement of the plaintiffs could be satisfied by partial eviction although it is a settled law that once personal necessity is proved, the ownership of the tenant is to show that partial eviction shall satisfy the personal necessity of the plaintiffs.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Smt. Jasbir Kaur @ Raj Rani And Anr. vs Rabindra Kumar Yadav And Anr. on 26 March, 2008

6. On analyzing the impugned judgment as well as material on record and submission made by the parties, the relationship of landlord and tenant is accepted by the defendant Patna High Court C.R. No.253 of 2016(20) dt.19-04-2023 6/7 himself in the written statement as well as in his deposition. Plaintiff had specifically claimed that her husband and her father-in-law is running their business in a tenanted premises and as such they required the suit premises for their business. This fact has been admitted by the defendant. In the said circumstances, the finding of the learned trial court is that the plaintiff had bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises appears to be legal and proper. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this court in Cases of Tip Top and others Vs Smt. Indramani Devi reported in AIR 1982 Patna 190, Smt. Jasbir Kaur @ Raj Rani and Another Vs Rabindra Kumar Yadav reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 386, Hira Lal Das and Another Vs Loknath Newatia reported in 2014 (4) PLJR 476 and Gopal Kumar Khetriwal @ Gopal Khetriwal Vs Smt. Geeta Devi Dokani and others reported in 2017 (4) PLJR 59. The defendant nowhere pleaded that the requirement of the plaintiffs could be satisfied by partial eviction although it is a settled law that once personal necessity is proved, the ownership of the tenant is to show that partial eviction shall satisfy the personal necessity of the plaintiffs.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gopal Kumar Khetriwal @ Gopal Khetriwal vs Smt. Geeta Devi Dokania & Ors on 18 May, 2016

6. On analyzing the impugned judgment as well as material on record and submission made by the parties, the relationship of landlord and tenant is accepted by the defendant Patna High Court C.R. No.253 of 2016(20) dt.19-04-2023 6/7 himself in the written statement as well as in his deposition. Plaintiff had specifically claimed that her husband and her father-in-law is running their business in a tenanted premises and as such they required the suit premises for their business. This fact has been admitted by the defendant. In the said circumstances, the finding of the learned trial court is that the plaintiff had bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises appears to be legal and proper. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this court in Cases of Tip Top and others Vs Smt. Indramani Devi reported in AIR 1982 Patna 190, Smt. Jasbir Kaur @ Raj Rani and Another Vs Rabindra Kumar Yadav reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 386, Hira Lal Das and Another Vs Loknath Newatia reported in 2014 (4) PLJR 476 and Gopal Kumar Khetriwal @ Gopal Khetriwal Vs Smt. Geeta Devi Dokani and others reported in 2017 (4) PLJR 59. The defendant nowhere pleaded that the requirement of the plaintiffs could be satisfied by partial eviction although it is a settled law that once personal necessity is proved, the ownership of the tenant is to show that partial eviction shall satisfy the personal necessity of the plaintiffs.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - V Nath - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Pushpa Yadav 100 Wpc/2405/2018 M/S ... on 8 January, 2019

Reference in this regard may be made to two decisions of this court in Case of Food Corporation of India and others Vs Vishun Properties and Patna High Court C.R. No.253 of 2016(20) dt.19-04-2023 7/7 Enterprises and others reported in 1995 BBCJ 711 as well as in case of M/s Bata India Limited Vs Dr. Md. Qamruzzama reported in 1993 Vol 1 PLJR 87 (DB).
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Hira Lal Das & Ors vs Loknath Newatia on 21 November, 2014

6. On analyzing the impugned judgment as well as material on record and submission made by the parties, the relationship of landlord and tenant is accepted by the defendant Patna High Court C.R. No.253 of 2016(20) dt.19-04-2023 6/7 himself in the written statement as well as in his deposition. Plaintiff had specifically claimed that her husband and her father-in-law is running their business in a tenanted premises and as such they required the suit premises for their business. This fact has been admitted by the defendant. In the said circumstances, the finding of the learned trial court is that the plaintiff had bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises appears to be legal and proper. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this court in Cases of Tip Top and others Vs Smt. Indramani Devi reported in AIR 1982 Patna 190, Smt. Jasbir Kaur @ Raj Rani and Another Vs Rabindra Kumar Yadav reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 386, Hira Lal Das and Another Vs Loknath Newatia reported in 2014 (4) PLJR 476 and Gopal Kumar Khetriwal @ Gopal Khetriwal Vs Smt. Geeta Devi Dokani and others reported in 2017 (4) PLJR 59. The defendant nowhere pleaded that the requirement of the plaintiffs could be satisfied by partial eviction although it is a settled law that once personal necessity is proved, the ownership of the tenant is to show that partial eviction shall satisfy the personal necessity of the plaintiffs.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - M Sahoo - Full Document
1