Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.13 seconds)Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta this Court has held that a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere, honest desire in contra-distinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts, by placing himself in the place of the landlord is, whether in the given facts proved by material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere honest? If the answer be in the positive the need is bona fide. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. If the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself dwell into lesser premises so as to protect the tenant's continued occupation in tenancy premises....
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100, the Supreme Court also observed:
Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery And Co on 7 January, 2000
In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary and Co. AIR 2000 SC 534 the Supreme Court pointed out that the landlord has complete freedom to chose his requirement for residential purposes and it was observed:
Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal on 11 July, 2001
19. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal 2002 (48) ALR 259 wherein it was observed:
Kishan Chand vs Jagdish Pershad And Ors. on 16 October, 2001
20. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kishan Chand v. Jagdish Prasad and Ors. 2003 All. CJ 2252 wherein "bona fide need" was explained and the relevant observations are:
Siddalingamma And Anr vs Mamtha Shenoy on 18 October, 2001
In Siddalingamma and Anr. v. Mamtha Shenoy the Supreme Court elaborately explained what ''bona fide' need is and the relevant observations are as follows:
Muni Lal And Ors. vs Prescribed Authority And Ors. on 20 September, 1976
25. The Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have, on appraisal of evidence, recorded a categorical finding of fact regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship. The Supreme Court in Munni Lal and Ors. v. Prescribed Authority and Ors. clearly observed that while examining the findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship of landlord and tenant it is not for the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion which may be different from that reached by the District Judge or the Prescribed Authority.
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
26. This view has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ran Chander Rai and Ors. 2003 (2) ARC 385 and Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash 2004 (1) ARC 613.
Ranjeet Singh vs Ravi Prakash on 18 March, 2004
26. This view has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ran Chander Rai and Ors. 2003 (2) ARC 385 and Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash 2004 (1) ARC 613.