Showing : 531-540 of 728 Results

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2006
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-- Shop - Ground of personal necessity - Shop required for establishing business of son - Another shop available during pendency of eviction petition in which another son of landlord adjusted - That does not mean that requirement of shop for establishing business of another son does not survive - If..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2006
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13B-- Petition u/s 13-B of the Act - Leave to contest - Heavy burden is on tenant to prove that requirement of landlord is not genuine - To prove this, tenant has to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available - A mere assertion is not sufficient -..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2006
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13B-- NRI co-owner - Competent to seek eviction of tenant u/s 13-B of the Act even when other co-owners may not be entitled to the benefit of the provision of S.13-B of the Act...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2006
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13B-- NRI co-owner of property - Competent to seek eviction u/s 13-B of the Act...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2006
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13B, 13(3)(a)(i), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 105-- Two shops given on rent under one tenancy - Requirement of shops proved - Tenant liable to be evicted from both shops - Tenancy cannot be splitted...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2006
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13B-- Co-owner - Can seek eviction of a tenant u/s 13-B of the Act - Till such time the property is actually partitioned by metes and bounds, co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2006
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(2)(iii)-- Impairing value and utility - Inspection of shop by building expert - If expert is permitted to inspect the shop after removing the false ceiling, no prejudice is to be caused to any party particularly when ejectment is sought on the ground of material impairment and that building is unsafe for..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2005
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a)-- Bona fide need - Landlord running a shop in another rented premises and wanted to run the shop in his own premises alongwith his younger son - Need bona fide...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2005
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a), 15(5)-- Bona fide need - It is a finding of fact - Reasoning adopted by Appellate Authority neither perverse nor irrational - Warrants no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction...........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2005
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(ii), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974, Section 13(3)(a)(ii), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Chandigarh Amendment) Act, 1982, Section 3-- Shop-cum-flat (SCF) is a non residential building - Ground floor whereof is used as a shop and first floor is used for residential purpose - Landlord is entitled to evict a tenant from non residential building...........

Showing : 531-540 of 728 Results