Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
Attar Singh vs Tahoora Khwaja on 6 August, 2012 cites

Nanalal Goverdhandas & Co. And Ors. vs Samratbai Lilachand Shah on 18 March, 1980

16. Further in Nandlal Goverdhandhas and Co. Vs. Samratbai Lilachand Shah (AIR 1981 Bom 1) it has been held that bona fide requirement is a state of mind and unless a person claiming requirement is subjected to cross-examination, requirement without his evidence cannot be established. In the present case such burden of proof has not been discharged by the respondent satisfactorily.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Santosh Kumar vs Bhai Mool Singh on 5 February, 1958

"5. What should be the approach when leave to defend is sought for? There appears to be a mistaken belief that unless the tenant at that stage makes out such a strong case as would non-suit the landlord, leave to defend cannot be granted. This approach is wholly improper. When leave to defend is sought for, the tenant must make out such a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge and that in our opinion should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action (see Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh). At the RC.Rev.No.51/2007 Page 10 of 12 stage of granting the leave parties rely in support of their rival contentions on affidavits and assertions and counter-assertions on affidavits may not afford such incontrovertible evidence to lead to an affirmative conclusion one way or the other. Conceding that when possession is sought for on the ground of personal requirement, an absolute need is not to be satisfied but a mere desire equally is not sufficient. It has to be something more than a mere desire. And being an enabling provision, the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. If as it appears in this case, the landlord is staying at Pathankot, that a house is purchased, may be in the name of his sons and daughters, but there may not be an apparent need to return to Delhi in his old age, a triable issue would come into existence and that was sufficient in our opinion to grant leave to defend in this case."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 409 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987

11. The petitioner has further contended that the respondent is not his landlord as he has not ever paid rent to her, but paid to a person named Naved Yar Khan. This plea is again misconceived. It must be noted here that there is no rent receipt produced by the petitioner to show that he paid rent to any such person. The respondent has admitted the fact that the petitioner had not made any payment of rent since 1984. But, this does not debar the respondent from getting the tenanted premises vacated because once the respondent is proved to be the owner of the suit property, she would be the landlord as it is settled law that owner is always the landlord , even if the relationship of landlord and tenant is not proved. It must be kept in mind that the context in which the word "owner" has been used in Section 14 (1)(e) of the said Act has been succinctly set out by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Ved Prabha & Ors. 33 (1987) DLT 80 (SC) 2028 as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 577 - G L Oza - Full Document
1