Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (0.64 seconds)
C.Venkatesh vs M/S.Vel Beds on 18 August, 2010 cites

Kuldeep Singh vs Ganpat Lal & Anr on 5 December, 1995

In the case of Jagdish Lal (Supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel the landlord-petitioner, it has been observed that if a new business started by the tenant in premises let out to him was allied business or a business which as ancillary to the business, then it would not amount to change of user. It has further been observed that it is enough for the tenant to argue that nature of the building has continued to be commercial matter to which changed use it has been put. In that case, the change was from gen merchant, ready-made and cloth merchant to the setting up of a restaurant for serving tea cold-drinks and it was found in those circumstances that it would be covered by the mischief Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. It is evident that there was prejudice caused to the landlord because making tea, serving the same would result into activities which are harmful to tenanted premises resulting prejudice to the interest of the landlord. However, in present case, the change of user is from cloth merchant to stationery. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is such a drastic change in the nature of business so as to conclude prejudice is caused to the landlord-petitioner the tenant-respondent is to be ejected."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 61 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Om Pal vs Anand Swarup (Dead By Lrs.) on 4 October, 1988

This Court referred to Om Prakash v. Amar Singh11, Om Pal v. Anand Swarup12, Waryam Singh v. Baldev Singh13, Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries14, and Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand15 and held: (SCC p.11, para 12) When the construction is alleged to have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises, the construction should be of such a nature as to substantially diminish the value of the building either from the commercial and monetary point of view or from the utilitarian aspect of the building. There is hardly any material in the present case on the basis of which the Court could come to the conclusion that the act of the tenant here has amounted to commission of such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. The Rent Controller and the High Court have not properly applied their minds to the relevant aspects in the context of the statute and have acted without jurisdiction in passing an order of eviction under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act. The Appellate Authority was justified in denying an order of eviction to the landlord on this ground.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 59 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Waryam Singh vs Baldev Singh on 31 October, 2002

This Court referred to Om Prakash v. Amar Singh11, Om Pal v. Anand Swarup12, Waryam Singh v. Baldev Singh13, Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries14, and Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand15 and held: (SCC p.11, para 12) When the construction is alleged to have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises, the construction should be of such a nature as to substantially diminish the value of the building either from the commercial and monetary point of view or from the utilitarian aspect of the building. There is hardly any material in the present case on the basis of which the Court could come to the conclusion that the act of the tenant here has amounted to commission of such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. The Rent Controller and the High Court have not properly applied their minds to the relevant aspects in the context of the statute and have acted without jurisdiction in passing an order of eviction under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act. The Appellate Authority was justified in denying an order of eviction to the landlord on this ground.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 49 - S N Variava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next