Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.22 seconds)Pedda Seetharamappa And Ors. vs Pedda Appaiah on 25 November, 1960
Evidently, courts below have acted erroneously in drawing inference on the representation stated to have been made to the Commissioner. When the latter had not gone into the witness box. In the absence of the Commissioner figuring as a witness and subjecting himself to cross-examination his report is relevant only for the purpose of what he has actually seen and reported. As it has been held in Seetharamappa v. Appaiah , where the report of the Commissioner is founded on representation made to him or on matters brought to his notice by one party to suit alone, the report deserves to be ignored. So, we are now concerned only with the question whether raising of that wall on the eastern extremity of verandah in front of the shop would amount to an act of waste.
Section 33 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bishamber Dass Kohli (Dead) By Lrs vs Smt. Satya Bhalla on 12 January, 1993
However, the decision in Bishamber Dass Kohli's case , is to the effect that even user of a part of the premises let out for residential purpose as lawyer's office would be a wrongful user.
Union Of India & Anr vs K.S. Subramanian on 30 July, 1976
Union of India v. Subramanian , lays down that in dealing with a question considered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in two cases, the proper course for the High Court is to find out and follow the opinion expressed by the larger Benches in preference to those expressed by smaller Benches. This practice is followed even by the Apex Court and has crystalized into a rule of law.
Govinda Naik G. Kalgahatagi vs West Patent Press Co. Ltd. on 12 April, 1979
In Govind Naik v. West Patent Press Co. , the five Judges Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that if two decisions of the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and one of them is by a larger Bench while the other is by a smaller Bench, the decision of the larger bench, whether it is earlier or later in point of time, should be followed by High Courts and other Courts. If two decisions of the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and if both Benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of Judges, the latter of the two decisions should be followed by High Courts and other courts. So on the ratio laid down in , which was rendered by the Bench of three Judges, I am of the view that carrying on Pawnbroker's business in the present case where the building is let out for three other trades is an actionable one inviting eviction under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960. And the courts below have rightly held in favour of the landlord.
Om Prakash vs Amar Singh & Anr on 9 January, 1987
In Om Prakash v. Amar Singh A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 617, the tenant constructed a partition wall in a hall and tin shed in the open courtyard adjacent to the demised building. The partition wall was made without digging any foundation of the floor of the room nor it touched the ceiling instead. It was a temporary wall of 6 feet height converting the big hall into two portions for its convenient use. It could be removed at any time without causing any damage to the building. The Supreme Court held that the partition wall did not make any structural change of substantial character either in the form or structure of the accommodation. It was further held that taking into consideration the nature of the construction of the tin-shed it could not be said to have altered the accommodation. On the ratio laid down in the decisions referred to above, it is evident that the impugned wall cannot give rise to an action under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Act. We have to bear in mind that the nature and character of change or alteration of the building must be of essential, and important nature. In determining the question the court must address itself to the nature, character of the constructions and the extent to which they make changes in the front and structure of the accommodation, having regard to the purpose for which the accommodation may have been let out to the tenant. And it is not possible to give exhaustive list of constructions which do not constitute material alterations, as the determination of this question depends on the facts of each case. Applying this test it is evident that the view taken by the Tribunals below is unsustainable.
Sha Nirbhayala Bahadurmal vs Krishna Rao M. Nikan on 5 January, 1982
15. Learned Counsel for the respondent/landlord has cited the decision of Singaravelu, J. in Bahadurmal v. Krishna Rao (1982)1 M.L.J. 376. where changing the shutters and doors with rolling shutters and removal of cement flooring and putting up mosaic flooring all in the nature of remodelling, would tantamount to technical waste and are undoubtedly wilful and reckless acts on the part of the tenant. They are certainly prejudicial to the interests of the landlord in that the tenant has made indiscriminate alteration and addition unilaterally without the consent and approval of the landlord. It amounts to doing of an act which affects the utility of the building though the tenant might have added to the value of the building by putting up a better appearance. This runs contra to the trend of decisions indicated earlier and I am unable to agree with learned Counsel for the respondent/ landlord that the construction of the impugned wall is likely to impair materially the value of the utility of the building.
Ram Dass vs Ishwar Chander And Others on 9 May, 1988
In Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chancier A.I.R. 1988S.C. 1422, the Apex Court has held that satisfaction of the "legality and propriety" of the order under revision is a much wider jurisdiction. That jurisdiction enables the court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also, though the revisional court is not "a second court of first appeal".
Shiv Lal vs Sat Parkash And Another on 18 December, 1993
In Shiv Lal v. Sat Prakash A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 275, while interpreting Section 15(5) of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act which was also the subject of interpretation in the earlier decision, the Supreme Court has pointed out that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court should not act as a regular third appellate authority and can interfere only within the scope of the sub-section discussed and defined in many reported cases by that court. In the instant case the findings of the court regarding erection of the new wall would be a finding of fact. But the question whether the construction has materially altered the accommodation is a mixed question of fact and law. It should be determined on the application of the correct principles.