Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.46 seconds)
Jatinder Singh Nanra vs Sarita Rani on 12 July, 2011 cites

Mangat Rai & Anr vs Kidar Nath & Ors on 21 August, 1980

"2. Rent Control legislations have been acknowledged to be pieces of social legislation which seek to strike a just balance between the rights of the landlord and the requirements of the tenants. Such legislations prevent the landlords from taking the extreme step of evicting the tenants merely upon technicalities or carved grounds. This Court inMangat Rai v. Kidar Nath. (1980) 4 SCC 276: (AIR 1980 SC 1709) held that where the Rent Acts afford a real and sanctified protection ot the tenant, the same should not be nullified by giving a hypertechinical or liberal construction to the language of the statue which instead of advancing the object of the Act may result in its frustration. The Rent Acts have primarily been enacted to give protection to the tenants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 44 - S M Ali - 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 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 RC REV.NO. 81/2010 Page 9 of 16 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
1