Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)Mohd. Ayub & Anr vs Mukesh Chand on 5 January, 2012
In Mohammed Ayub and another versus Mukesh Jain 2012 (2) SCC 155, the Supreme Court relied upon judgement rendered by it in Ganga Devi versus District Judge Nainital 2008 (7) SCC 770, to say that comparative hardship indisputably is a relevant factor for determining the question as to whether the requirement of the landlord is bonafide or not within the meaning of the provisions of the UP Act and the Rules, and it is essentially a question of fact. The Supreme Court had observed that Rule 16 provides for some factors which are required to be taken into consideration. It had clarified however that the court would not determine the question only on the basis of sympathy or sentiment.
Mohd.Ismail vs Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar on 28 October, 2009
In Mohamed Ismail (supra) the Supreme Court was considering the tenants appeal in respect of a shop measuring 10 feet into 26 feet which was in his possession for the past 20 years on a monthly rent of Rs.600. After two rounds of litigation where the matter was remanded by the High Court and the subordinate court again dismissed the appeal, another writ petition was filed by the tenant which was dismissed on the finding that the respondent had successfully proved his bonafide requirement of the shop in question. Special Leave Petition was thereafter filed. The Supreme Court considered the pleading that the need of the respondent of the shop in question had become non-existent as during the proceedings the respondent had constructed two shops. The need pleaded by the respondent for starting a business for one of his sons who was now dead, and another son who was absconding could not be accepted. The Court noticed that one of the sons had expired and his second son had absconded for the past several years. Then the landlord in the meantime had also constructed two shops where he was carrying on his business of Kirana. Another tenant who was in possession of another shop had vacated that shop and a third son had been running his independent business in the said shop. It was under the circumstances that the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the High Court for decision of fresh in the light of subsequent events.
Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery And Co on 7 January, 2000
(13) The learned counsel for the respondent landlord has also pointed out that the release application was preferred by the landlord way back in the year 2010 which was allowed Only on 30.10.2021 by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter, the petitioners had preferred an Appeal which was decided only on 20.12.2021 by the Appellate Court. During the pendency of the Appeal there was no interim stay of the judgement rendered by the Prescribed Authority. Yet the tenants did not vacate the premises in question. The Appellate Court after appreciation of all evidence and material on record, returned a concurrent finding regarding bonafide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. Despite lapse of more than ten years from the date of filing of the release application by the answering respondent, the petitioners have not bothered to make any efforts whatsoever to find alternative accommodation hence the issue of comparative hardship has been rightly decided in favour of the respondent landlord by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the respondent landlord has placed reliance upon the following judgements to buttress his arguments: -
K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd.& Ors on 9 July, 2008
(17) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent landlord that a person who approaches the court for grant of equitable relief must disclose all material facts which have a bearing on the adjudication of the issues involved. The petitioners should refrain from concealing or suppressing any material fact. The learned counsel for the respondent landlord has referred to judgements rendered in Oswal Fats and Oils Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner (Administrative) Bareilly Division (2010) 4 SCC 728; K.D. Sharma versus Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others (2008) 12 SCC 481, and Welcome Hotel and Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Others A I R 1983 Supreme Court 1015, to say that relief can be denied to a litigant who is found guilty of suppressing or concealing material facts from the Court. It is also not the discretion of the litigant to decide as to what facts or material for consideration before the court. He is under an obligation to disclose all facts of a case and leave the decision making to the court and if the litigant does not come with clean hands to the Court he cannot be granted any relief under Writ jurisdiction.
Alka Gupta vs Narender Kumar Gupta on 27 September, 2010
The Appellate Court found on the basis of judgements relied upon by the Prescribed Authority that it is not for the tenants to suggest to the landlord as to how he had to carry on his business and settle his financial affairs. The landlord is the best judge of his need and how it could be satisfied. It is also not for the court to suggest as to how the landlord must carry on his business or settle his son in employment. The Appellate Court considered judgements cited by the tenants i.e. Mohanlal Agarwal versus Girish Kumar Chaturvedi 2008(73) ALR 444 of this Court and Alka Gupta versus Narendra Kumar Gupta 2011 (1) CAR 187 (Supreme Court) but found the facts of such cases completely different and inapplicable in the facts of the Appeal before him. The appeal was consequently dismissed and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 30.10.2021 was affirmed By the District Judge by his judgement and order dated 20.12.2021.
Sk.Sattar Sk.Mohd.Choudhari vs Gundappa Amabadas Bukate on 11 October, 1996
This court had however considered subsequent events brought on record through supplementary affidavit by the tenant petitioner that the original landlord had died and was substituted by his widow and two sons. It was stated that Shyamsundar for whom the release of the shop in question was sought by the landlord was now using the shop of his father after his death. Moreover Shyamsundar had taken on rent another shop in another locality where he was carrying on the same business of selling cloth. In the counter affidavit filed by the landlords it was stated that the landlord had two sons Shyam Sunder and Suraj Bajaj it was Suraj Bajaj who was running several businesses including one of a finance company and from the income whereof he had constructed a commercial complex containing 20 to 25 shops. This Court observed that it appeared to be most strange that all the aforesaid businesses were being run by only one brother Suraj Bajaj and the other brother Shyam Sundar was just waiting for vacation of the shop in dispute to start his business. The court relied upon judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sk Sattar Sk Mohd. Chaudhri versus Gundappa Ambodas Bukate AIR 1997 Supreme Court 998 , that a family arrangement brought into existence only for the creation of ground on which the tenant can be evicted has to be ignored by the court.
M/S Karta Ram Rameshwar Dass vs Ram Bilas And Others on 23 November, 2005
The said judgement was followed in M/S Karta Ram Rameshwar Das vs. Ram Bilas AIR 2006 Supreme Court 362; where the same principle was applied by the court to reject the plea taken by the landlords that every available shop was being used by only one brother that is Suraj Bajaj and Shyam Sundar could not have any right over the said shops built by Suraj Bajaj, however he had full right to use the shop left behind by his father to his mother. Accordingly, the subsequent event of availability of the shop in which the original landlord was doing business to Shyamsundar, during the pendency of the writ petition after the death of the original landlord, had changed the scenario which subsequent development was taken into consideration by the court and the petition was allowed but the rent being paid by the tenant petitioner was enhanced to current market rate as the shop in question was situated at Station Road Moradabad.
Hasmat Rai & Anr vs Raghunath Prasad on 28 April, 1981
The court also placed reliance upon Hasmat Rai versus Raghunath Prasad 1981 (3) SCC 103;, where cognizance of subsequent events was held permissible provided it wholly satisfied the requirement of the petitioner landlord who had petitioned for eviction on the ground of personal requirement. The court had observed - "where possession is sought for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action but must subsist till the final decree or an order of eviction is made. If in the meantime events have cropped up which would show that the landlords requirement is wholly satisfied, then in that case his action must fail ,---
Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001
In Gaya Prasad versus Pradeep Srivastava 2001 (1) ARC 352 (SC), the court had said that for the malady of judicial system of delayed justice, a landlord should not suffer. "Every subsequent development would not deny the claim of the landlord. It may happen that the lifetime of litigation maybe more than that of the litigant landlord himself. Therefore, the judicial tardiness should not cause an irreparable loss to the landlord. It would be unjust to shut the door of justice to a landlord on the end of litigation after passing through various levels of litigation and to deny him Justice and relief sought only on the ground of certain developments that occurred pendente lite because the tenant has been successful in prolonging litigation for an unduly long period. However, if the cause of action is submerged in such subsequent events, in other words, if subsequent events are such as to satisfy the very requirement of the landlord in its entirety, the same can be seen and there is no allergy in considering and taking note of subsequent events of importance which may justify the moulding of relief not on account of mere pendency of litigation but on account of the position and status of landlord and other relevant factors.