Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.34 seconds)
Madhukar Vishnu Sathe And Others vs Vithoba Ramji Thorat, (Since Deceased ... on 21 March, 1991 cites

Kartar Singh vs Chaman Lal & Others on 14 March, 1969

13. The case of Kartar Singh (supra) also relates to the tenant who was in occupation of the premises which was used for a composite purpose, viz. residence and profession and it is in that light the Court held that there would be no eviction merely by acquisition of vacant possession of residence elsewhere by such a tenant. In this case the position was that the premises in question was on admitted facts used for a composite purpose viz. residence and profession and it is in the context of this situation of facts the Court has come to the conclusion that in such a situation a decree for eviction cannot be passed with regard to acquiring of a suitable residential premises by the tenant elsewhere.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 25 - A N Grover - Full Document

Dr. Gopal Dass Verma vs Dr. S. K. Bhardwaj And Another on 2 May, 1961

Similar is the position in Dr. Gopal Dass's case (supra) where the tenant who was let out residential premises was using the same for residence as well as for carrying on profession and therefore in that context the Court held that the premises had been let out to a Doctor who was an ENT specialist. The premises was under a composite use and it was in that connection it was observed that the matter fell outside the necessary provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 55 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Anirudhha Ramkrishna Karlekar vs Jankibai Raghunath Bedekar on 15 November, 1989

16. Additionally, one can have a look at the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the said Act dealing with the ground of eviction on account of nuisance and annoyance and in that connection it has been specified that anyone who is guilty of nuisance or annoyance, as specified therein, whether he is a tenant or any person residing with the tenant would email eviction of the tenant on the said ground. In this connection, the question that comes up for consideration is as to whether by the words "any person residing with the tenant" it would only apply to residential premises and not to business premises. If on the basis of this undertaking of the use of the above phrase in sub-section (c) it is understood that the said provision is applicable to only the residential premises and not to business premises it would not require any imagination to visualise the disastrous consequences. The said provision has come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court (C. Mookerjee, C.J. and T. D. Sugla, J.) in Anirudha's case (1990 (1) Bom CR 247) (supra) and in this connection it has been observed as follows:--
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1