Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.68 seconds)
S.Murugan vs S.Kasthuribai on 4 June, 2019 cites

Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungloo on 17 February, 2017

36.Strictly Section 10 (3) (c) can be invoked only where the landlord is doing business by himself or herself. In this case respondent-landlady was admittedly not carrying on any business when the request was made to the petitioner. On the date of the petition no business was also carried on by her daughter. It appears it was in anticipation of the business to be started by the daughter of the respondent, a request was made to the petitioner to vacate the rented premise. As per the decisions cited by the learned counsel in R.V.Dharmalinga Mudaliar vs K.Annamalai AIR 1981 http://www.judis.nic.in Mad 312, in Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungaloo 22 (2017) 5 SCC 683 and in Narapatchand A. Bhandari vs Shantilal Moolshankar Jan and Another (1993) 3 SCC 351 supra have held that requirement by the members of the family member was sufficient to uphold eviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Narpatchand A. Bhandari vs Shantilal Moolshankar Jani And Anr on 18 March, 1993

36.Strictly Section 10 (3) (c) can be invoked only where the landlord is doing business by himself or herself. In this case respondent-landlady was admittedly not carrying on any business when the request was made to the petitioner. On the date of the petition no business was also carried on by her daughter. It appears it was in anticipation of the business to be started by the daughter of the respondent, a request was made to the petitioner to vacate the rented premise. As per the decisions cited by the learned counsel in R.V.Dharmalinga Mudaliar vs K.Annamalai AIR 1981 http://www.judis.nic.in Mad 312, in Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungaloo 22 (2017) 5 SCC 683 and in Narapatchand A. Bhandari vs Shantilal Moolshankar Jan and Another (1993) 3 SCC 351 supra have held that requirement by the members of the family member was sufficient to uphold eviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 12 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

R.V. Dharmalinga Mudaliar vs K. Annamalai on 1 April, 1981

36.Strictly Section 10 (3) (c) can be invoked only where the landlord is doing business by himself or herself. In this case respondent-landlady was admittedly not carrying on any business when the request was made to the petitioner. On the date of the petition no business was also carried on by her daughter. It appears it was in anticipation of the business to be started by the daughter of the respondent, a request was made to the petitioner to vacate the rented premise. As per the decisions cited by the learned counsel in R.V.Dharmalinga Mudaliar vs K.Annamalai AIR 1981 http://www.judis.nic.in Mad 312, in Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungaloo 22 (2017) 5 SCC 683 and in Narapatchand A. Bhandari vs Shantilal Moolshankar Jan and Another (1993) 3 SCC 351 supra have held that requirement by the members of the family member was sufficient to uphold eviction.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Joginder Pal vs Naval Kishore Behal on 10 May, 2002

26.In Joginder Pal vs Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397 the court held that Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act provides for the http://www.judis.nic.in 15 tenant placing the landlord in possession “if he requires additional accommodation for residential purpose or for purpose of business which he is carrying on”. The consistent view of this court has been to give wider interpretation that not only the landlord but also included includes his family members and such an approach was held stands to reason, justice, equity and good conscience.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 399 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Shamahad Ahmad & Ors vs Tilak Raj Bajaj (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 11 September, 2008

151., this court referred to a series of decision rendered by the http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Honourable Supreme Court on the issue of comparative hardship. If the landlord has clearly stated in the application that if eviction is ordered, the advantage to them will not outweigh the disadvantage that may be caused to the landlord eviction should be orderd. There the tenant was doing stationery business for more than 30 years and even if evicted he could get another shop in the same vicinity. A similar view was taken in Shamshad Ahmad and Others vs Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) Through Lrs (2008) 9 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 153 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs Dilbahar Singh on 27 August, 2014

36.Strictly Section 10 (3) (c) can be invoked only where the landlord is doing business by himself or herself. In this case respondent-landlady was admittedly not carrying on any business when the request was made to the petitioner. On the date of the petition no business was also carried on by her daughter. It appears it was in anticipation of the business to be started by the daughter of the respondent, a request was made to the petitioner to vacate the rented premise. As per the decisions cited by the learned counsel in R.V.Dharmalinga Mudaliar vs K.Annamalai AIR 1981 http://www.judis.nic.in Mad 312, in Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungaloo 22 (2017) 5 SCC 683 and in Narapatchand A. Bhandari vs Shantilal Moolshankar Jan and Another (1993) 3 SCC 351 supra have held that requirement by the members of the family member was sufficient to uphold eviction.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 47 - Cited by 510 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 Next