Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)The Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925
Lalit Kumar vs Saroj Kumari on 24 March, 1969
The need is to be judged as an objective fact by the Rent Control Authorities and is based on hard reality. It is not a question of sentiment or desire not based on reality. The need has to be assessed on a consideration of facts of each case and according to a reasonable appreciation. The standard of need would vary according to the circumstances of each case and of the need of the landlord in a particular case Lalit Kumar Vijai v. Saroj Kumari, (1969 Ren CJ 545) (Delhi).
Om Parkash Singal vs Roshan Lal Khanna on 11 December, 1968
15. The word 'bona fide' was again interpreted in the case of Om Prakash Singhal v. Roshan Lal Khanna, (1969 Ren CJ 645) (Delhi) and was construed to mean genuinely or in good faith and it conveys an idea of absence of any intent to deceive. If the landlord is not seeking eviction on false pretext of acquiring additional accommodation with an oblique purpose and his requirement cannot be considered to be inspired by a pure fanciful whim, the plea of bona fide requirement put forward by him deserves ordinarily to be upheld.
K. Parasuramaiah vs Pokurl Lakshmamma on 11 December, 1964
In Parasuramaiah v. Pokuri Lakshmamma, (AIR 1965 Andh Pra 220) the words 'required bona fide' used in A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act were held to mean that the landlord requires the premises for his reasonable needs and that he is not seeking eviction on the pretence of requiring additional accommodation with any oblique motive.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Jogendra Singh on 4 March, 1963
In State of U. P. v. Jogendra Singh, (AIR 1963 SC 1618) Gajendragad-kar, J., pointed out.
Hirday Narain vs Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly on 21 July, 1970
24. Again in Hirday Narain v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly, (AIR 1971 SC 33 at p. 36) while interpreting Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, which indicates that the Commissioner or Appellate Asstt. Commr. or the Income-tax Officer 'may' rectify any mistake apparent from the record, Shah, J., held :
Bhagwan Das Chela Mahant Atma Das vs Moti Chand Ram And Ors. on 17 January, 1949
There can be no manner of doubt that tenants enjoy statutory protection against eviction to a certain extent but the principle enunciated in Sri Bhagwan's case cannot be applied to the cases under the new Act. That was a case on Section 3 of the old Act under which the District Magistrates enjoyed unbridled powers to grant permission to the landlord to file suits for eviction of their tenants. As no guidelines were prescribed for the exercise of those powers it was held that principles of natural justice would apply and pros and cons of both sides should be considered.
The Central Bank Of India vs Their Workmen(And Connected Appeals) on 12 May, 1959
29. The contention of the learned Advocate General that by virtue of Section 42 of the new Act the rule has got statutory sanction and sufficient value should be attached to it carries no force because a statutory rule cannot enlarge the meaning of the section. If it goes beyond what the section contemplates the rule must yield to the statute (Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen AIR 1960 SC 12).
Hukam Chand Etc vs Union Of India & Others(With Connected ... on 22 August, 1972
A compliance with the laying requirements, however, does not confer any validity to the subordinate legislation if it is in excess of the power conferred by the enabling Act Hukum Chand v. Union of India (AIR 1972 SC 2427 at p. 2432).