Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.57 seconds)
Shiva Kumar Nepal vs Sankar Roy on 4 July, 2019 cites

Malpe Vishwanath Acharya & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 19 December, 1997

In Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and Others (supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the need of social legislations like Rent Control Act striking a balance between rival interests so as to be just, held that, the law ought not to be unjust to one and give a disproportionate benefit or protection to another section of the society.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 261 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) By Lrs vs Sardar Dastur Schools Trust & Ors on 14 February, 2005

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adil Jamshed Frenchman (supra) held that the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life and it is to be assessed whether in the given facts proved by the material on record whether the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. The requirement should be so as to convince the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 85 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

M/S.Cauvery Coffee Traders,Mangalore vs M/S.Hornor Resources (Intern.)Co.Ltd on 13 September, 2011

In this context reliance was placed on Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore v. Hornor Resources (International) Company Limited5. That, it is now settled law that it is not necessary to establish that a person is trained or has Licence to take up a profession in the premises, all that is to be established is the bona fide requirement and not mere whim or desire of the landlord.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 177 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

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

In Ragavendra Kumar (supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was considering eviction based on bona fide requirement of the landlord for starting business. It was held inter alia that it is a settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has complete freedom in the matter and this could not be faulted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 681 - Full Document

Siddalingamma And Anr vs Mamtha Shenoy on 18 October, 2001

In Siddalingamma and Another (supra), the Appellant who was the landlady of the premises sought eviction of the Respondent under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. She was residing at the relevant time in her village home and the requirements as set out in the suit was that her husband was suffering from asthma and respiratory problems for which he required medical treatment and was required to be taken to Bangalore from the village which was situated at some distance. On the demise of her spouse during the pendency of the matter, an amendment was inserted to the effect that the suit properties were required by her on account of her own ill-health. The learned trial Court held that the suit premises was required for the use of the Appellant No. 1 and her family members in view of her ill-health and for the requirement of the children in her family such as better schooling and educational facilities. The Hon‟ble High Court in revision held that the husband of the Appellant No. 1 for whose sickness the shifting was required had since passed away and the cause had ceased to exist and thereby dismissed the Eviction Petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 187 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 3 Next