Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Chandrashekhar Ganesh Joshi & Ors vs Pradeep Ramchandra Mankeekar & Ors on 15 February, 2019 cites

B.R. Mehta vs Smt. Atma Devi & Ors on 2 September, 1987

"5. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in B.R. Mehta v. Smt. Atma Devi and Ors. reported in : [1987] 3 SCR 1184 , the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that acquisition of the premises by the wife of Dattaram, the tenant, could not be a ground for his eviction. In the case of B.R. Mehta, the tenant's wife who was a government servant was allotted a flat by reason of her being a Government servant. It was held that acquisition of the premises by the tenant's wife in the capacity as a Government servant could not be considered as an acquisition of the suitable alternative accommodation by the tenant. There, are two features which distinguish
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 77 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Prem Chand And Anr. vs Sher Singh Gupta on 30 October, 1984

901.wp.5001-98.doc this decision from the present case. In that case wife had not acquired the premises permanently but was allotted Government premises for her own use during her service, the husband had no domain over the premises and he could not go and stay in the premises as of a right and that was not their matrimonial home. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the wife had resigned and had joined the husband in the rented premises. In the present case, the wife has not acquired the accommodation temporarily but has purchased it. The original petitioner was residing with his wife in her premises as if it was their matrimonial home and was using the suit premises only for the purpose of his practice as an Advocate. The present case is more an the line with the decision of the Apex Court in Prem Chand v. Sher Singh reported in 1981 DRJ 287 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court passed a decree for possession on the ground of acquisition of suitable alternate premises though the alternate flat was purchased by the wife of the tenant."
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Smt.Saroja Parmeshwaran vs A) Padmakar Sitaram Bole on 16 July, 2010

21. Ms. Miskin relied upon the decision of Saroja Parmeshwaran's case (supra). In that case, the original tenant L.K. Mani (Subramaniam) came to Mumbai for a job. He took the suit premises on monthly rent Rs.45/-. He was living in the suit premises till about 1974. The case of the respondent-landlord was that the original tenant on his retirement shifted to his native place at Coimbatore in the year 1973-74 or thereabout and secured a suitable residence there. The respondent instituted suit in the year 1974 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises invoking
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - D G Karnik - Full Document
1