Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.58 seconds)Babu Singh Chauhan vs Rajkumari Jain & Ors on 1 February, 1982
9. In Bimla Devi v. 1st Additional District Judge. , the Supreme Court had to consider whether the keeping of household effects in a part of the premises of the landlord, while he was residing elsewhere, would be sufficient to hold that he was in occupation of the premises. Referring to Babu Singh Chauhan v. Rajkumari Jain , it was pointed out that in that decision the word "possession" had been treated as synonym of the word "occupation" occurring in Explanation (iv) to Section 21(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 13 of 1972 and that if control over the entire or a portion of the property is retained either by making casual visits or by even locking up the premises keeping the household effects therein, that would be occupation of the premises. As pointed out earlier, on the facts and the evidence in this case, no sort of control in any manner had been exercised by the respondent over the portions which had already fallen vacant and applying the ratio of this decision of the Supreme Court, the respondent cannot be stated to be in occupation of the vacant portions.
The Accommodation Controller, Madras vs G. Rukmani Ammal on 15 September, 1970
Accommodation Controller v. G. Rukmani Ammal , has already been referred to. As pointed out earlier, that decision merely laid down that for the purpose of Section 3(10)(c) of the Act, it would suffice if the owner resides in a portion of the house off and on but keeping it locked most of the time, and it is a question of intention disclosed by acts of user. Even applying this test to the facts of this case, as seen already, the respondent is not admittedly residing in a portion which had fallen vacant nor is there any manifestation of an intention by her for occupying it by acts of user. Therefore, that decision clearly does (sic) not advance the case of the petitioner.
Dr. Mohammad Ibrahim vs Syed Ahmed Khan And Anr. on 10 February, 1950
In addition, it is seen that the attention of the learned Judges does not appear to have been drawn to the decision of the Division Bench reported in Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim v. Ahmed Khan and the other decisions referred to earlier in this judgment.
C.S. Pillai vs Capt. M.A. Murugaraj on 23 November, 1982
It, therefore, follows that the decision in C.P. Pillai v. Capt., M.A. Murugaraj relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner rendered without reference to the Bench decision and others cannot be applied to this case.
Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978
Again, in Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan the word "occupation" occurring in Section 11(1)(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act (34 of 1966), came to be interpreted by the Supreme Court in the context of the argument that the words "own occupation" postulated that the landlord must require for his personal residence. The Supreme Court pointed out that the section contemplates actual possession of the landlord, whether for his own residence or for his business and even if the landlord was running a hotel in the house, he would be undoubtedly in possession or occupation of the house in the legal sense of the term. This decision also reiterates that the expression "occupation" is wide enough to include actual possession of the landlord, whether for his own residence and also for persons living with him as members of the same family or for his business. Emphasis has been laid in this decision on the personal occupation by the landlord of the premises either for himself or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house or shop is held as provided under Section 11(1)(h) of that Act.
The Cantonment Board, Ambala Cantt vs Dipak Parkash And Others on 3 April, 1962
The Supreme Court, in Cantonment Board v. Dipak Prakash , pointed out, while considering the argument that the word "occupation" should ordinarily be interpreted as actual occupation, but that it is difficult to agree that when a person, entitled to actual occupation by reason of his lease permits another to occupy it, then it ceases to be in the actual occupation of the person so permitting. It was also further pointed out that even if the military officer in occupation was away for months together and the members of his family or his servants were residing, it would not make the building one which ceased to be in the occupation of the officer and, therefore, where a person entitled to occupy, permits another to occupy the same, he is in actual possession through such other person. This decision draws attention to the need for either actual occupation by the person entitled to occupy the same or by another person put in occupation by the person entitled to occupy the same. In either event, this decision appears to lay down that there should be actual occupation or constructive occupation, neither of which is present in this case with reference to the respondent herein in relation to the three portions which had fallen vacant.
Firm Ram Kishun Shah Etwari Sahu vs Jamuna Prasad And Ors. on 28 November, 1950
This decision, though rendered with reference to the provisions of Section 7(3)(a)(i) of the Act 15 of 1946, in my opinion, would squarely apply to this case In Firm Ram Kishun Shah v. Jamuna Prasad the word "occupation" occurring in Section 11(3) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, III of 1947 came up for consideration and the Court approved of the considerations pointed out in Rex v. St. Pancras, (1877)2 Q.B.D.581 at page 588, to ascertain whether there was occupation.