Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (2.42 seconds)Santosh Devi Soni vs Smt. Chand Kiran on 20 September, 1999
14 Present case is also not a case of an additional accommodation as
has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The eviction
petition clearly discloses that there is no other suitable accommodation
available with the dependent children of petitioner no.2 where they can
run their business activity. It is not a case as if they are already running
a business and require additional accommodation to expand their
business. Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the
judgment of Santosh Devi (supra) is misplaced. Apart from the fact that
this is only a one page judgment where the facts can neither be depicted
nor deciphered, it is also not as if it is a general rule. The judgment has
categorically noted that "looking into facts and circumstances of the
case, especially in the light of the additional accommodation which has
subsequently been made available to the respondent as mentioned by the
appellant, the question of the respondents need was required to be
thrashed out on merits by a full-fledged trial." Facts of the said case are
distinct as has been noted in the aforesaid lines. In that case the
accommodation has been made available to the landlord subsequently;
the facts of that case in that eventuality had justified a grant of leave to
defend. Ratio of the said judgment is wholly inapplicable.
Raj Kumar Khaitan And Others vs Bibi Zubaida Khatun And Another on 7 October, 1994
11 In a judgment reported as AIR 1995 SC 576 Raj Kumar Khaitan
& Ors. Vs. Bibi Zubaida Khatun & Anr. ,the Apex Court had observed
as under:
1