Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Central Bank Of India vs Sunshine Sewing & Embroidery Class on 11 October, 2017 cites

Raj Kumar Khaitan And Others vs Bibi Zubaida Khatun And Another on 7 October, 1994

40] In Raj Kumar Khaitan & Ors. vs. Bibi Zubaida Khatun & Anr.3, the Supreme Court has held that there is no necessity to plead the precise nature of business which landlord intents to start in order to make out a case of reasonable and bona fide 3 (1997) 11 SCC 411 17/21 ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2017 01:52:51 ::: skc JUDGMENT-WP-5734-95 requirement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 118 - Full Document

Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996

41] In Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (Mrs) vs. Traders & Agencies & Anr.4, the Supreme Court has held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement. It is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and he is the best judge of his requirement. If the landlord desires to beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property occupied by him as a tenant or on any other basis is either insecure or inconvenient, it is not for the courts to dictate to him to continue to occupy such premises.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 156 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Dattatraya Laxman Kamble vs Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde & Anr on 28 April, 1999

42] In Dattatraya Laxman Kamble vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde & Anr.5, the Supreme Court has held that there is no doubt that a landlord has to prove that he needs the building for his own occupation but there is no warrant for presuming that his need is not bona fide. In appropriate cases, it is even open to the court to presume that the landlord's requirement is bona fide and to place the burden of disproving the presumption on the tenant. In the same case, the Supreme Court has held that the court ought not to take charitable view of the landlord.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 204 - Full Document

Mohd. Ayub & Anr vs Mukesh Chand on 5 January, 2012

43] In Mohd. Ayub & Anr. vs. Mukesh Chand5, the Supreme Court has held that the landlord's requirement need not to be a dire necessity. Further, the circumstance that the landlord is more affluent and could have purchased another building is irrelevant if the landlord bona fide and reasonably requires the suit premises. Similarly, the length of tenancy is also not very relevant. The hardship that the landlord would suffer by not occupying his own premises would be far greater than the hardship the tenant would suffer by having to move up to another place. The courts,cannot 4 (1996) 5 SCC 344 5 (2012) 2 SCC 155 18/21 ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2017 01:52:51 ::: skc JUDGMENT-WP-5734-95 direct the landlord the manner in which landlord must conduct his business or how best the landlord can conduct his business.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 184 - Full Document
1