Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.40 seconds)

Bharati Pustak Kendra And Ors. vs Chhedi Lal Daruka on 3 July, 1992

In yet another decision in the case of M/s 11 Bharati Pustak Kendra and others v. Chhedi Lal Daruka, reported in 1992(2) Patna Law Journal Reports, 692 a Division Bench of this Court has held that the finding of the court recorded on the basis of willingness or unwillingness of the parties and making its own assumption based on that would not be valid and liable to be set aside. It is clear that while considering the question of partial eviction under the Act the court has first to consider the reasonable requirement of the landlord and then to consider as to whether reasonable requirement is specifically required only from part of the premises. This question has to be decided on the basis of the materials on record and not only on the basis of ipse dixit of the landlord or his desire to occupy as much area as he wants.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Bihar Alloy Steels Ltd. vs Hori Shanker Worah (Properties) Ltd. ... on 10 September, 1986

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Bihar Alloy Steel Limited v. Hari Shankar Worah (Properties) Limited and another, reported in 1987 Patna Law Journal Reports, 868, has taken notice of the provision, as contained in proviso to Section 11(1)(c) of the Act and has come to the conclusion that the Legislature has chosen to qualify the word, "satisfied" by the expression substantially, with a view to keep the interest of the tenant protected by providing occupation to him of the building in part, and granting to the landlord occupation to meet his reasonable requirement.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1