Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
"In Surya Dev Rai v. Chander Rai this Court has ruled that to be amenable to correction in certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed by the Court or authority on whose judgment the High Court was existing jurisdiction, should be an error which is self-evident. An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possible be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. As to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in Surya Dev Rai that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the error in drawing inferences like a Court of appeal. The High Court has itself recorded in its judgment that -"considering the evidence on the record carefully" it was inclined not to sustain the judgment of the appellate Court. On its own showing, the High Court has acted like an appellate Court which was not permissible for it to do under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ranjeet Singh vs Ravi Prakash on 18 March, 2004
30. Relying upon the judgment of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai it has been held by the Apex Court in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 682 : 2004 SCFBRC 256 that no inference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The finding of the Apex Court is as under:-
Bhulan Singh And Ors. vs Ganendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury on 23 August, 1949
"In Bhulan Singh v. Gancndra Kumar, AIR 1950 Cal 74, a Bench of the Calcutta High Court took the view that the words "bona fide required by the landlord" could not be read as "Premises bona fide requiring rebuilding." Could have no application whatsoever unless the state of the premises was such that they required to be rebuilt. It is to be observed that proviso (f) to Section 11 (1) of the Act does not mention premises requiring rebuilding. What it states is that Sub-section (1) shall have no application if the landlord requires the premises bona fide for rebuilding. The sate of premises therefore, is not an essential factor in the case. However, it cannot be overlooked that in this case the learned Judge has accepted the evidence of a witness which shows that these premises were very old, dilapidated, dangerous and likely to fall if extensive repairs were not done to them quickly.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hyderabad Houses (Rent Eviction and lease) Control Act, 1954
Section 3 in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978
In the case of Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahmad Khan, reported in, AIR 1979 SC 272 : 1986 SCFBRC 346, the Apex Court had observed that while it was no doubt true that the tenant will have to be ousted from a house if decree of eviction had been passed yet such an event by itself could not be a valid ground for refusing a decree for eviction. While considering the question of relative hardship the requirement of the landlord having regard to his profession or calling or even the status have to be taken into account. In the present case while the landlord had led sufficient evidence to show that no other alternative accommodation was available, the tenant had not let any such evidence which could show that he had ever attempted to seek allotment of any accommodation which could be utilized for shifting his business which was dwindling day by day and as observed by the Appellate Authority itself, had been closed during the pendency of the appeal.