Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.46 seconds)The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
Shadi Singh vs Rakha on 23 April, 1992
It is also urged by Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel on behalf
of the appellant that in order to meet the requirement of the
respondents, it is necessary for them to make structural changes of
the suit premises. Whenever the landlord wants to meet his
requirement by structural changes, the case will be for building and
rebuilding by the landlords and it is the duty of the landlords to
provide the same accommodation to the tenant under Section 11 of
the Said Act. On this score, Mr. Ghosh refers to a decision of the
15
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shadi Singh vs. Rakha reported in (1992)
3 SCC 55.
Malpe Vishwanath Acharya & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 19 December, 1997
Referring to a three Judges Bench decision in the case of Malpe
Vishwanath Acharya & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
reported in (1998) 2 SCC 1, it is argued by Mr. Ghosh that the Court
should always be alive to consider that rent control legislation should
not be used to ensure disproportionately larger benefit to the
landlords at the cost of the lawful tenants. Court must strike a
balance and dispensation of justice under the Control Act must be
based on the theory of "live and late live".
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
In support of his contention Mr. Chakraborty refers to a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Prativa
Devi vs. T.V. Krishnan reported in (1996) 5 SCC 353. In the said
report it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the landlord is the
best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom
in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord
how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a
residential standard of their own.
Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs Chandrakant M. Patel & Ors on 4 February, 1974
Mr. Chakraborty specifically draws
my attention to paragraph-3 of the said report where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was pleased to quote the following lines from an
earlier decision in the case of Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs
Chandrakant M. Patel & Ors reported in (1974) 3 SCR 267:-
R.C. Tamrakar And Anr vs Nidi Lekha on 16 October, 2001
Mr. Chakraborty next refers to another decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in R.C. Tamrakar & Anr. vs. Nidi Lekha reported in
(2001) 8 SCC 431 and submits that the tenant cannot direct or take
the decision that the shop rooms from where the landlords are
carrying on business as tenants are reasonable, suitable and
sufficient cause the said shop rooms are situated at one of the most
prime commercial places of the city of Kolkata. Law is well settled that
it is for the landlord to decide and in what manner he should live and
he is the best judge of his requirement. In deciding the question of
bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to
how else landlord could have adjusted himself.
Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungloo on 17 February, 2017
Mr. Chakraborty also
refers to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mehmooda Gulshan vs. Javaid Russain Mungloo reported in AIR
2017 SC 1047 and submits that the question as to whether the
landlord has genuine need is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and
ones there is no need for finding of fact cannot be reopened. It is for
22
the landlord to decide to the best use of the premises and there is
nothing wrong on the part of the landlord in making plans for a better
living by doing business engaging her son. According to Mr.
Chakraborty, the First Appellate Court is the final court of fact held on
appreciation of evidence on record that landlords reasonably require
the suit godown for their commercial purpose no perversity of such
finding was allowed by the appellant. No substantial question of law
on perversity of impugned judgment was also framed under such
circumstances finding of fact cannot be reopened in the second
appeal.