Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.07 seconds)
Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungloo on 17 February, 2017 cites

Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978

“13. Moreover, Section 11(h) of the Act uses the words “reasonable requirement” which undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire as the High Court has done in this case. It seems to us that the connotation of the term “need” or “requirement” should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get a decree for eviction. Such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act which affords the facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds. This appears to us to be the general scheme of all the Rent Control Acts prevalent in other States in the country. This Court has considered the import of the word “requirement” and pointed out that it merely connotes that there should be an element of need.” Bega Begum (supra) has also considered the scope and ambit of the expression “reasonable requirement” at paragraph-17:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 200 - S M Ali - Full Document

Joginder Pal vs Naval Kishore Behal on 10 May, 2002

“19. From the aforesaid decision of this Court (in Joginder Pal case), it is therefore clear that this Court has laid down authoritatively that a non- residential premises, if required by a son for user by him would cover the requirement of the words used in the section i.e. “for his own use” in reference to a landlord. …” In C. Karunkaran (dead) by Lrs. v. T. Meenakshi[4], one issue which arose for consideration was whether non-examination of the person for whose need the building was required was fatal. It was held that “mere non-examination of the person for whose need the building was required by itself was no ground to non-suit the landlady”. To quote:
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 399 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Ajit Singh & Anr vs Jit Ram & Anr on 16 September, 2008

(v) In the present case, the requirement of the landlord of the suit premises for user as office of his chartered accountant son is the requirement of landlord “for his own use” within the meaning of Section 13(3)(a)(ii).” Joginder Pal (supra) was followed in many subsequent decisions and one close to the dispute in the instant case is Ajit Singh and another v. Jit Ram and another[3]. It has been held at paragraph-19:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 63 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Gulraj Singh Grewal vs Dr. Harbans Singh And Anr on 12 January, 1993

In Gulraj Singh Grewal v. Dr. Harbans Singh and another[5], this Court had an occasion to see whether a landlord can be non-suited on the ground of non-examination of the son for whose benefit the premises is sought to be vacated. This Court held that in case the need has otherwise been established in evidence, the non-examination is not material. At the best, it is only a matter of appreciation of evidence. To the extent relevant, paragraph-8 reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 16 - J S Verma - Full Document
1