Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
Bhagirath Mal And Anr. vs Smt. Yuvrani Sahiba Through Lrs. on 21 July, 2004 cites

Waryam Singh vs Baldev Singh on 31 October, 2002

11. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the instant case of eviction is not covered by Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act as it is not a case of any new construction, rather the plaintiff could have come with a case of substantial damage to the premises as a ground of eviction as provided Under Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act. It was also submitted that as per the plaint, some alterations were made by the defendant No. 1 only while some alterations were made by both the defendants and thus the findings of the courts below which are common against both the tenants are perverse. It was next submitted that these alterations do not amount to material alterations at all and some alterations were made with the permission of the plaintiff- landlord. Reliance is placed upon Waryam Singh v. Baldev Singh (2002 (8) SCALE 270), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the relevant provisions of eviction as contained in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 held that it should be proved that the tenant committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building of rented land. Thus, this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 49 - S N Variava - Full Document

Om Prakash vs Amar Singh & Anr on 9 January, 1987

Reliance was also placed upon Om Prakash v. Amar Singh and Anr. (1987 (1) Supreme Court Reports 969), wherein this legal principle was laid down that the findings regarding constructions would be Finding of fact but the question whether the constructions materially altered the accommodation is a mixed question of fact and law which should be determined on the application of the correct principles.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 81 - K N Singh - Full Document

Sheel Chand vs Prakash Chand on 1 September, 1998

12. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that except the opening of the door between the wall of two shops, both the courts below have arrived at concurrent findings regarding other alterations and both the courts below have held that these alterations are material alterations and there is no reason to interfere with such concurrent findings. Reliance is placed upon Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand ((1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 683), and Madamanchi Ramappa and Anr. v. Muthalur Bojjappa (2 SC R 1963 page 673). In both these judgments it was held that the High Court can not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact which are based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 81 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Madamanchi Ramappa & Anr vs Muthalur Bojjappa on 29 March, 1963

12. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that except the opening of the door between the wall of two shops, both the courts below have arrived at concurrent findings regarding other alterations and both the courts below have held that these alterations are material alterations and there is no reason to interfere with such concurrent findings. Reliance is placed upon Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand ((1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 683), and Madamanchi Ramappa and Anr. v. Muthalur Bojjappa (2 SC R 1963 page 673). In both these judgments it was held that the High Court can not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact which are based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 172 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1