Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.86 seconds)
Mrs. Madhur Bhargava vs Sh. B.B. Mathur on 8 August, 2014 cites

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

In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta VI (1999) SLT 163 = (1999) 6 SCC 222 wherein, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme E­381/2013 Page 19/20 Court of India that :­ "12. A perusal of Section 14 of the Act shows that the law has imposed restrictions on the recovery of possession, of any premises by landlord from a tenant notwithstanding any law or contract to the contrary. However, an order for recovery of possession is permissible on one or more of the specified ground. One such ground is the premises let for residential purposes being required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. What is a bonafide requirement is not defined in the Act. The words 'need' and 'require' both denote a certain degree of want with a thrust within demanding fulfilment. 'Need' or 'requirement' qualified by word 'bonafide' or 'genuine' preceding as an adjective­is an expression often used in Rent Control Laws. 'Bonafide or genuine need' of the landlord or that the landlord 'genuinely requires' or "requires bonafide" an accommodation for occupation by or use for himself is an accepted ground for eviction and such expression is often employed by Rent Control legislation draftsman. The two expressions are interchangeable in practice and carry the same meaning."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 974 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993

12. It is stated on behalf of the respondent that eviction petition bearing no. E­381/2013 is completely vague, lacks in material particulars and contradictory in nature. Further, false statement have been made in the Eviction Petition and as such petitioners­landlords have not approached this court with clean hands and intentionally concealed the material facts. It is settled law that one who comes to court must come with clean hands and effect of material concealment of facts goes to the root of the matter and the entire nature of proceedings instituted by the petitioners­landlords stand vitiated on the said account. Reliance is placed upon judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.P. Chengavaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. The eviction petition filed by the petitioners­landlords deserves dismissal on the above grounds and there is no requirement for the court to adjudicate the present E­381/2013 Page 7/20 case any further.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1512 - K Singh - Full Document

Rita Lal vs Raj Kumar Singh on 13 September, 2002

In (2002) 7 SCC 614 titled as Rita Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :­ "If the Court is satisfied that though in the pleadings an issue is raised but that is not a triable issue then the Court is justified in refusing the E­381/2013 Page 13/20 leave to defend. A defence, which is practically moonshine, sham or illusory can not be held to be raising a triable issue. Else the whole purpose behind enacting a provision for granting leave to defend, and not permitting a contest unless leave was granted, would stand defeated." Ownership
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 144 - Full Document

Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008

27. Purpose of letting has become redundant as in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India 148 (2008) DLT 705 Supreme Court, it has been held that the premises let out either for residential or for commercial purposes can be got vacated by the landlord for bonafide requirements. Availability or Non­Availability of alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi
Supreme Court of India Cites 77 - Cited by 1265 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery And Co on 7 January, 2000

In "Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Company", AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed by Hon'be Supreme Court that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter (reliance placed upon "Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. E­381/2013 Page 16/20 Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353). In AIR 2003 SC 156, it was observed that it is for the landlord to choose which one would be preferable to him or her and a tenant cannot question such preference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 681 - Full Document
1   2 Next