Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)
Gulabbai vs Nalin Narsi Vohra And Ors on 15 July, 1991 cites

Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978

It is also relevant to consider in this connection the observations of this Court in Bega Begum and Ors. v. Abdul Ahad Khan and Ors., [1979] 2 SCR 1 as regards the meaning of the words `reasonable requirement and own occupation' as used in Section 11(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. It has been held that the words `reasonable requirement undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 200 - S M Ali - Full Document

M/S. Variety Emporium vs V. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina on 27 November, 1984

The lower appellate Court simply considered that the second floor being a temporary shed could not properly be used for opening the Tax Consultancy Office and the first floor which consisted of 4 rooms of which 2 are used as bed rooms and 1 is used as a kitchen and 1 as study room of the sons of the appellant, cannot be conveniently utilised for the said office as there was no space for the same without considering at all that the appellant with members of his family had been residing already in the spacious bungalow referred to hereinbefore. It has been urged with great vehemence on behalf of the appellant that both the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court having found that the appellant reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises for the opening of the office of Tax Consultant of the appellant's husband, Amritlal Mutha, the decree of eviction of the suit premises should not have been set aside by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by taking into consideration subsequent facts and evidences. This submission, in our considered opinion, is without any substance and same is to be rejected. Reference may be made in this connection to the decision in the case of M/s Variety Emporium v. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina, [1985] 2 SCR 102 wherein it has been observed that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 107 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986

In Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, [1986] 3 SCR 866 it has been observed that: "In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court can go into the question of facts or look into the evidence if justice so requires it. But it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction in the absence of clear cut down reasons where the question depends upon the appreciation of evidence. It also should not interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal or court except where the finding is perverse in law in the sense that no reasonable person properly instructed in law could have come to such a finding or there is any misdirection in law or a view of fact has been taken in the teeth of preponderance of evidence or the finding is not based on any material evidence or it has resulted in manifest injustice. Except to that limited extent the High Court has no jurisdiction."
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 398 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next