Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.57 seconds)Joginder Pal vs Naval Kishore Behal on 10 May, 2002
(iv) for philanthropic use, or
The word "family" mentioned in the provision is nowhere
defined. The expression "family" must be given a wider liberal and
practical manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Joginder
Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal [(2002) 5 SCC 397], while
interpretating the expression "for his own use" as incorporated
under Section 13(3) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act, 1949, observed that the requirement of the landlord does not
(Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 10:04:43 PM)
(6 of 9) [CSA-117/2001]
mean that the landlord must himself physically occupy the
premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a
person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on
the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of landlord
for his own use. The Supreme Court after discussing the umpteen
number of cases arising out of rent control legislation of different
States, observed that the landlord's necessity includes the
requirement of the wife, husband, sister, children including son,
daughter, a widowed daughter and her son, nephew, another
coparceners, member of family and dependants and kith and kin
in the requirement of the landlord as "his or his own requirement
and user".
Rishal Singh vs Bohat Ram & Ors. on 21 July, 2014
8. The High Court of Delhi in case of Rishal Singh Vs. Bohat
Ram [2014 (2) RCR (Rent) 256], considered the issue of
bonafide necessity made by the landlord for his grandson for the
rented premises. The High Court held that the need of any
member including the son, wife, son's wife and children are to be
treated as need for the landlord. It was observed that law, on this
point, has evolved to the extent where it is accepted position that
grandson is included in dependants of the landlord.
Ram Prasad Rajak vs Nand Kumar & Bors. & Anr on 18 August, 1998
12. The Supreme Court in case of Ram Prasad Rajak Vs. Nand
Kumar & Bors.
Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Ram Lal on 28 January, 2019
& Ors. [(1998) 6 SCC 748] and H.K. Sharma
Vs. Ram Lal [(2019) 4 SCC 153], has held that issue in relation
to bonafide requirement of rented premises by landlord is
essentially a question of fact and does not involve any substantial
question of law.
Umerkhan vs Bismillabi @ Babulal Shaikh & Ors on 28 July, 2011
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umerkhan Vs.
Bismillabi Shaikh & Ors. [(2011) 9 SCC 684] has observed
that if a second appeal is admitted on substantial question of law,
while hearing the second appeal finally, the court can re-frame the
substantial question of law or can frame new substantial question
of law or even can hold that the question of law as already framed
do not fall within the purview of substantial question of law but
the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100
CPC, without formation/involvement of substantial question of law.
1