Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)
Rais Mian vs Abdul Samad on 25 August, 2014 cites

Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008

12. Mr. Baweja argued that the provision of eviction petition for bona fide requirement under section 14(1)(e) applies only in cases where the eviction petition is sought in respect of residential premises and does not include commercial premises. This Court does not find any merit in this contention as it is well settled law the provision now includes commercial premises as well. This change was effected by the Supreme Court ruling in Satyawati Sharma (supra) which held that the distinction between eviction petition filed for a residential premises from those petitions filed for commercial premises was arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India as the need for the premises, while filing the eviction petition, is what acquires importance rather than the nature of the premises. RC. Rev. 186 of 2011 Page 11 of 14 The Trial Court has noted the reasons for rejecting this argument and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 77 - Cited by 1265 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh on 15 December, 2000

7. Counsel for the tenant, Mr. Rajesh Baweja, argued that the need of the landlord was not genuine, as it was only a desire to acquire possession of the tenanted premises. Mr. Baweja argued that the issues raised by the tenant required the matter to be put to trial. Counsel relied on Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh (2001)1 SCC 706 to submit that when the tenant seeks to file the leave to defend, it is enough if he prima facie, makes out a case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. Counsel further argued that a leave to defend should not be refused when the eviction petition is filed on a mere desire. While this Court agrees with the point concerning the instances when a leave to defend may be granted, however it is important to note that the nature of the requirement in the eviction petition, which in the present case the tenant claims to be absent, will determine whether a leave to defend application RC. Rev. 186 of 2011 Page 7 of 14 will be allowed. In the present petition, this Court is of the considered view that the landlord's requirement for the tenanted premises was genuine. The leave to defend application may be allowed only under those circumstances when it is felt that the need of the landlord may not be bona fide.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 439 - S V Patil - Full Document

M.M. Quasim vs Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors on 7 April, 1981

10. It is the argument of the tenant that the landlord has alternate accommodations which are available to him and in such circumstances there RC. Rev. 186 of 2011 Page 9 of 14 is no need as claimed by the landlord. Counsel relies on M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma AIR 1981 SC 1113 to show that while examining a case of personal requirement, if it is pointed out that there are some vacant premises with the landlord which he can occupy, the element of need in his requirement would be absent. In such circumstances it would be important to determine first if the landlord has any alternate accommodation. In the absence of availability of such alternate accommodation, the need would be considered to be genuine. This Court finds that the tenant has not placed on record any documentary evidence to show that the landlord had alternate accommodation which was suitable to the landlord's need but was lying vacant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 316 - D A Desai - Full Document

Ram Babu Agarwal vs Jay Kishan Das on 7 October, 2009

13. The learned counsel for the tenant had argued that the landlord had not given any specific details of the proposed nature of business for which the eviction is being sought; that the lack of such details only indicate the lack of a genuine need of the landlord and for this reason alone the leave to defend application ought to have been granted and the eviction order ought not to have been passed. Counsel further argued that given the advanced age of the landlord and the lack of knowledge in starting such a business, the landlord cannot show that he has a bona fide requirement for the premises; besides, he argued, the sons of the landlord were earning sufficiently well which would suffice to the expenses of the family. However, it is settled law that it is not for the tenant to direct or decide how the landlord could utilize his financial resources so long as the tenant is not asked to be evicted. The landlord may have sons who are earning sufficiently, but it is ultimately for the landlord to decide if such income can meet the expenses of his family. Nor can the tenant determine the adequacy of funds or earnings for a landlord and/or his family. Courts have held that the landlord shall not be constrained from evicting the tenant solely on the ground that he lacks the RC. Rev. 186 of 2011 Page 12 of 14 experience to start a new business. The Supreme Court in Ram Babu Agarwal v. Jay Kishan Das AIR 2010SC721 held that "7..... a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business also."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 351 - Full Document
1