Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)
Mitrasen Ashok Kumar And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 13 December, 2005 cites

Shri Harish Tandon vs The Addl.District Magistrate, ... on 5 January, 1995

For this purpose the prescribed authority relied upon Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and Ors. 1995 (1) AWC 106 (SC) : 1995 (1) ARC 220 ; Moharram Ali and Anr. v. Prescribed Authority, Allahabad and Ors. 1998 (2) AWC 1438 and H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul 1989 (1) AWC 639 (SC) : 1989 (2) ARC 26 (SC). On the question of bona fide requirement the prescribed authority arrived at the conclusion that the landlord has established that his need is bona fide as is clear from the material available on record. It rejected the argument that the tenants are in occupation of the accommodation for the long time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 144 - N P Singh - Full Document

H.C. Pandey vs G.C. Paul on 28 April, 1989

For this purpose the prescribed authority relied upon Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and Ors. 1995 (1) AWC 106 (SC) : 1995 (1) ARC 220 ; Moharram Ali and Anr. v. Prescribed Authority, Allahabad and Ors. 1998 (2) AWC 1438 and H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul 1989 (1) AWC 639 (SC) : 1989 (2) ARC 26 (SC). On the question of bona fide requirement the prescribed authority arrived at the conclusion that the landlord has established that his need is bona fide as is clear from the material available on record. It rejected the argument that the tenants are in occupation of the accommodation for the long time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 144 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Moharram Ali And Another vs Prescribed Authority, Allahabad And ... on 31 March, 1998

For this purpose the prescribed authority relied upon Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and Ors. 1995 (1) AWC 106 (SC) : 1995 (1) ARC 220 ; Moharram Ali and Anr. v. Prescribed Authority, Allahabad and Ors. 1998 (2) AWC 1438 and H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul 1989 (1) AWC 639 (SC) : 1989 (2) ARC 26 (SC). On the question of bona fide requirement the prescribed authority arrived at the conclusion that the landlord has established that his need is bona fide as is clear from the material available on record. It rejected the argument that the tenants are in occupation of the accommodation for the long time.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - J C Gupta - Full Document

Sushila ] vs Iind Addl.District Judge, Banda & Ors on 17 December, 2002

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the case in Sushila v. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda and Ors. 2003 Manju Cases 20 (SC) and other cases. On the question of comparative hardship the prescribed authority arrived at the conclusion that since the tenant has already occupied the shop just in front of the shop in dispute the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord. The prescribed authority therefore, allowed the application and directed for release of the shop in favour of the landlord. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner's-tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Before the appellate authority the same arguments were advanced as were raised before the prescribed authority. The appellate authority after considering the same affirmed the findings of the prescribed authority with regard to the bona fide requirement. The appellate authority also affirmed the findings on the question of comparative hardship. The argument that all the heirs of the tenant have not been impleaded, the appellate authority affirmed the view taken by the prescribed authority. Thus, the appeal by tenant-petitioner was dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 37 - B Kumar - Full Document

Ranjeet Singh vs Ravi Prakash on 18 March, 2004

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash 2004 (2) AWC 1721 (SC) : 2004 (2) SCCD 890 : 2004 (1) ARC 613, this Court will not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority unless the findings are demonstrated to be either perverse or suffering from any error much less manifest error of law. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to demonstrate that the findings are either perverse or suffering from any error much less manifest error of law. In this view of the matter, this Court declines to interfere with the orders impugned in the present writ petition. On the question of non-joinder of all the heirs of tenant, the law in this regard is settled by the Apex Court and this Court. In view of the aforesaid law the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that all the heirs of the petitioner have not been impleaded, has no force and is rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 224 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1