Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Prof. Ram Prakash vs Sh. Sheikh Nasim Ahmed on 22 October, 2011 cites

Kailash Kumar Dilwali vs B.S. Raizada on 2 March, 1972

33. The respondent has also contended in the written statement that petitioner has no intention to reconstruct or to carry out the substantial additions and alterations in the property in dispute as the premises is in good condition and it does not require any change, alteration, addition and re­building. However, it is also not the case of the petitioner that building in question is in dilapidated condition and he requires the suit Eviction Petition No. E­51/09 Page 22 of 28 premises bonafide for the purpose of reconstruction of the whole building. In this regard, the petitioner has categorically stated in his cross­examination that the entire building is structurally sound and well maintained and the suit shop is also structurally sound and well maintained. However, the petitioner is entitled to get the suit shop vacated even if the building in question is in sound and good condition because as already discussed herein above that the intention of the petitioner cannot be said to be malafide if he wants to combine his two small scattered shops measuring of 600 sq. ft. each into one big shop by removing the internal walls of the suit shop for better profitable use. It has been held in S. Venugopal. Vs. A. Karruppusami & Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 507 that, "Even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose of erecting a new building on the same site." It has been further held in Kailash Kumar Vs. B.S. Raijada 1972 RCR (Rent) 433 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that, "Where the landlord planned to demolish his old style one storied house to improve and develop his property so as to make it more profitable to himself, he need not prove that premises were old, unsafe or unfit for human use. Petition for eviction under clause (g) of section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 should be considered as concerned only Eviction Petition No. E­51/09 Page 23 of 28 with the requirement of the landlord for re­building the premises being bonafide. It cannot be taken to be concerned with the condition of the premises as that is subject matter of clause (f) of section 14 (1) of the Rent Act"
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

P.S. Pareed Kaka & Ors vs Shafee Ahmed Saheb on 23 March, 2004

In view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, it is evident that if the petitioner intends to reconstruct his property in order to combine the shop space of the suit premises with two other fragmented shop areas of 600 sq. ft. each marked Y and Z lying vacant from last 3 ½ years in the possession of the petitioner thereby to put the property to a more profitable use after dismantling the partition walls and by reconstructing, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no bonafide requirement of the suit premises as alleged by the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 44 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978

32. In view of above, the apprehension of the respondent that the alternative space offered by the petitioner is not located in the market and having its access from the parking side and his business would be completely ruined if this shop is given to him is without any basis and appears to be figment of imagination. Moreover, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mst. Bega Begum & Ors. Vs. Abdul Ahad Khan (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. 1979 (1) SCC 273 that, "To insist on getting an alternative accommodation of a similar nature in the same locality will be asking for the impossible. The defendants are tenants and had taken the lease only for 10 years, but have overstayed for 20 years and they cannot be allowed to dictate to the landlord that they cannot be evicted unless they get similar accommodation in the same locality."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 200 - S M Ali - Full Document

Neta Ram vs Jiwan Lal on 17 January, 1962

18. Therefore, if the petitioner wants to reconstruct the area in his possession of about 1200 sq. ft. which is scattered into two small shops of about 600 sq.ft. which are also lying vacant by combining them into one big space to let out the same to the proposed customer for some profitable use, it cannot be said that the petitioner has any malafide intention in doing so. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neta Ram Vs. Jiwan Lal AIR 1963 SC 499 that, "The Controller has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the Claim. To reach this conclusion, obviously the Controller must be satisfied about the reality of the claim made by the landlord and this can only be established by looking at all the surrounding circumstances such as condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord and so on."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 56 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Panchamal Narayan Shenoy vs Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy on 20 February, 1970

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Panchamal Narayan Shenoy Vs. Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy 1970 RCR 307 SC that, "In considering the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord under this clause the desire of the landlord to put the property to a more profitable use after demolition and reconstruction is also a factor that may be taken into account in favour of the landlord. In our Eviction Petition No. E­51/09 Page 12 of 28 opinion, it is not necessary that the landlord should go further and establish under this clause that the condition of building is such that it requires immediate demolition."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 30 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document
1