Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)M/S. Rahabhar Production Pvt. Ltd vs Rajendra K. Tandon on 26 March, 1998
Therefore, he submits that, in such a situation, no decree for possession can be made on the ground of bona fide requirement, having regard to the law enunciated by the Apex Court in Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon, 1998(4) Supreme Court Cases 49 and Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Changanlal Sundarji & Co., . Learned Counsel further contends that the Appellate Court, in any case has completely gone overboard in reversing the findings returned by the trial Court, for it has not considered the entire evidence in its proper perspective nor analysed the same before overturning the finding of fact returned by the trial Court. On the other hand, decision of the Appellate Court is utterly confused as the Appellate Court has answered both the issues of reasonable and bona fide requirement as well as comparative hardship together. He submits that the evidence on record would not permit the Court to take the view that has been taken by the Appellate Court. According to the learned Counsel, the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court on the issue of reasonable and bona fide requirement cannot be sustained in law. He further submits that even the finding of fact returned by the Appellate Court on the issue of the comparative hardship suffers from the same error and it will have to be obliterated from the record. He contends that the Appellate Court has not considered the crucial fact that the respondent was in possession of premises at Khar, Mumbai and, it has come in evidence that the respondent had another premises at Bandra and her husband was having premises at Dadar. If that be so, it would be preposterous to evict the tenant as the issue of comparative hardship will have to be answered against the respondent.
Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs vs Chaganlal Sundarji And Co on 13 October, 1999
Therefore, he submits that, in such a situation, no decree for possession can be made on the ground of bona fide requirement, having regard to the law enunciated by the Apex Court in Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon, 1998(4) Supreme Court Cases 49 and Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Changanlal Sundarji & Co., . Learned Counsel further contends that the Appellate Court, in any case has completely gone overboard in reversing the findings returned by the trial Court, for it has not considered the entire evidence in its proper perspective nor analysed the same before overturning the finding of fact returned by the trial Court. On the other hand, decision of the Appellate Court is utterly confused as the Appellate Court has answered both the issues of reasonable and bona fide requirement as well as comparative hardship together. He submits that the evidence on record would not permit the Court to take the view that has been taken by the Appellate Court. According to the learned Counsel, the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court on the issue of reasonable and bona fide requirement cannot be sustained in law. He further submits that even the finding of fact returned by the Appellate Court on the issue of the comparative hardship suffers from the same error and it will have to be obliterated from the record. He contends that the Appellate Court has not considered the crucial fact that the respondent was in possession of premises at Khar, Mumbai and, it has come in evidence that the respondent had another premises at Bandra and her husband was having premises at Dadar. If that be so, it would be preposterous to evict the tenant as the issue of comparative hardship will have to be answered against the respondent.
Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors on 8 April, 1987
3. On the other hand, Mr. Apte, the learned Counsel for the respondent contends that it is not a case of no pleading relating to the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement as contended, but at best the averments in the plaint can be described as vague. He contends that the entire plaint will have to be read as a whole. Moreover, in paragraph No. 4, it is clearly averred that the respondent required the suit premises for her personal use, occupation as well as for the family. He submits that, no doubt, the expression used in the plaint is "desires", however, the Court would not give literal meaning to that word. Whereas, considering the pleadings as a whole, contends Mr. Apte, the respondent has set out the reasonable and bona fide requirement on the basis of which possession of the suit premises was pressed into service. Learned Counsel further contends that, the petitioners in their written statement have not made any grievance either about the lack of pleadings in the plaint relating to this ground nor relating to the vagueness of the pleadings or that there was no cause of action for instituting the suit on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement in the present case. He has relied on paragraph No. 7 of the written statement to contend that the petitioners had clearly understood the case set out by the respondent-plaintiff with regard to this ground and also contested the case of the respondent, therefore, it would be inappropriate to non suit the respondent particularly when the trial Court had framed issue and the petitioners also allowed the evidence adduced by the respondent to be let in during the trial without any demur and that the matter was tried and decided by the Court below on the basis of such materials which came on record. To buttress this contention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court Ram S. Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College & others, and 1994 Supplement (3) S.C.C. 698 Baba K. Bhinge v. Samast L. Gavali & others, as well as (2001(2) S.C.C. 355)8, (paragraph No. 5) and of this Court reported in (2001(4) All.M.R. 601)9. He submits that there was sufficient pleading as well as evidence brought on record during the trial so as to decisively answer the subject issue in favour of the respondent. He has further pointed out that what is relevant to note is that the case made out by the plaintiff during the evidence, in particular in paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 7 & 8 of the examination in chief, has not been challenged by the petitioners during the cross-examination. If that be so, there is no reason to doubt the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the respondent-plaintiff and no fault can be found with the conclusion reached by the Court below to answer the issue against the petitioners tenants. He submits that even if there are some errors here and there in the reasoning or the discussion of the Appellate Court that should not be a reason to interfere with the decision of the Appellate Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Smt. M.M. Amonkar & Others vs Dr.S.A.Johari on 21 February, 1984
To support this contention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in M.M. Amonkar v. Dr. S.A. Johar, and Jagdish Prasad v. Angoori Devi, . He therefore, submits that this is not a case where the Appellate Court has returned finding of fact in the absence of any material on record in support of such a finding. According to him, the conclusion reached by the Appellate Court if can be supported on the basis of material on record, the Court should be loath to interfere with the same, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227. Learned Counsel, further contends that in so far as the issue of hardship is concerned, the Appellate Court has dealt with the relevant factors that are required to be taken into account for considering this issue in paragraph No. 33 of the judgment. He submits that it has come on record that the respondent has no other premises of her own, particularly in the locality of Thane. He submits that the respondent was staying at Khar in a rented premises and she had no other premises of her own except the suit premises. He further submits that it has come on record that alternative premises could be secured by the petitioners within the locality as well as city of Thane. Learned Counsel further contends that the Appellate Court even rightly adverted to the financial position of the petitioners and if that is taken into account, it is not possible to suggest that any hardship will be caused to the petitioners if the decree for possession was passed. In the circumstances, learned Counsel contends that the conclusion reached by the Appellate Court on the issue of reasonable and bona fide requirement as well as the issue of comparative hardship needs no interference.
T. Sivasubramaniam & Ors vs Kasinath Pujari & Ors on 31 August, 1999
Much reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in T. Shivasubramanians case (supra) to contend that mere desire of the landlord was not sufficient to accept the claim of bona fide and reasonable requirement. Relying on paragraph No. 4 of the said judgment it is argued that the landlord must set out his need in its petition and establish that such a need is bona fide. As observed earlier, in the present case the plaintiff has clearly pleaded about the need in the plaint and has also adduced evidence in support of her case during the trial. May be further details have come on record during the evidence which were not specifically pleaded. However, to my mind, the present case would be governed by the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in , where the Apex Court has observed that if the parties go for trial having understood each others case very well and allowed the evidence to be let in, then the plaintiff cannot be non-suited on the ground of vagueness in pleading. Applying that principle to the case on hand, the grievance made before this Court by the petitioners is unacceptable.
M. Padmanabha Setty vs K. P. Papiah Setty on 11 March, 1966
Moreover, as rightly contended by the respondent, there is no much distinction while mentioning the locality of Khar and Bandra for which reason the P.W. 2 must have described it as "Bandra" instead of "Khar". It is therefore, not possible to overturn the conclusion reached by the Appellate Court on the factum of reasonable and bona fide requirement having been established by the respondent-plaintiff. If that be so, then respondent-landlady cannot be denuded of her right to occupy the suit premises which are owned by her. The Apex Court in the decision M. Padmanabha Shetty v. K.P. Papiah Shetty, has taken the view that when the landlord is in need of the premises he has purchased and owned by him for his personal use the Court cannot doubt the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord. Understood thus, there would be no occasion for this Court to doubt the reasonable and bona fide of the respondent which is found to have been established by the Appellate Court below.
Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978
From the evidence it is obvious that no positive evidence has been adduced by the defendants that getting alternative premises in the same locality or the same city was impossible. If that be so, then applying the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in in the case of Ms. Bega Begum & others v. Abdul Ahad Khan (dead) by L.Rs. and others, the Court will have to answer the issue of comparative hardship against the petitioners-tenants and in favour of the respondent-plaintiff landlady. However, there is one aspect which the Appellate Court has glossed over namely, by virtue of the later part of sub-section (2) to section 13 of the Act, the Court was obliged to examine as to whether there was any possibility of passing a partial decree.
Rehman Jeo Wangnoo vs Ram Chand And Ors on 7 December, 1977
11. In the circumstances, this writ petition would partly succeed. The decree passed by the Appellate Court stands modified to the extent that the petitioners-tenants would be entitled to retain one room on the northern side of the flat admeasuring 12 x 10 feet with one balcony admeasuring 10 x 6 feet and the bathroom and W.C. admeasuring 12 x 3.5 feet attached to it; the decree passed by the Appellate Court with regard to the remaining portion of the suit premises is maintained as it is. Accordingly this writ petition partly succeeds in the above terms. It is needless to mention that the premises that will be allowed to be retained by the petitioner on the northern side will be provided with separate entrance as was offered by the respondent-plaintiff and suggestion to that effect made to the defendant during the cross-examination referred to above. Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
Jagdisih Prasad vs Smt. Angoori Devi on 15 March, 1984
To support this contention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in M.M. Amonkar v. Dr. S.A. Johar, and Jagdish Prasad v. Angoori Devi, . He therefore, submits that this is not a case where the Appellate Court has returned finding of fact in the absence of any material on record in support of such a finding. According to him, the conclusion reached by the Appellate Court if can be supported on the basis of material on record, the Court should be loath to interfere with the same, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227. Learned Counsel, further contends that in so far as the issue of hardship is concerned, the Appellate Court has dealt with the relevant factors that are required to be taken into account for considering this issue in paragraph No. 33 of the judgment. He submits that it has come on record that the respondent has no other premises of her own, particularly in the locality of Thane. He submits that the respondent was staying at Khar in a rented premises and she had no other premises of her own except the suit premises. He further submits that it has come on record that alternative premises could be secured by the petitioners within the locality as well as city of Thane. Learned Counsel further contends that the Appellate Court even rightly adverted to the financial position of the petitioners and if that is taken into account, it is not possible to suggest that any hardship will be caused to the petitioners if the decree for possession was passed. In the circumstances, learned Counsel contends that the conclusion reached by the Appellate Court on the issue of reasonable and bona fide requirement as well as the issue of comparative hardship needs no interference.
1