Start New Business / No Experience Required : 7 Important Case Laws on Eviction

The landlord need not to show evidence that he has experience of said business that he proposes to start. In fact, it is not necessary for landlord to indicate the precise nature of business which he intends to start in the premises.

1. Ram Babu Agarwal v. Jay Kishan Das, (2010) 1 SCC 164

A person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business that does not mean that his claim for starting new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business and sometimes they are successful in the new business also.

2. Tarsem Singh v. Gurvinder Singh, 173 (2010) DLT 379

If the landlord wants to start his own business in the premises owned by him then by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the requirement of the landlord for the premises is neither bonafide nor genuine.

3. Balwant Singh Chowdhary v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2004 (1) RCR 487

It is not necessary for the landlord to plead and prove the specific business he wants to set up, if the landlord wanted the premises for business purposes.

4. Gurcharan Lal Kumar v. Srimati Satyawati, 2013 (2) RCR (Rent) 120

Merely because the exact nature of business has not been described would not take away their bonafide need to carry out a business (when admittedly both the sons are dependent upon petitioner for this need). It was observed that if the business need is not disclosed this would not wipe away the bonafide need of the landlord as has been pressed under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRCA, 1958.

5. Raj Kumar Khaitan v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun, AIR 1995 SC 576

It was not necessary for the appellants-landlords to indicate the precise nature of the business which they intended to start in the premises. Even if the nature of business would have been indicated nobody would bind the landlords to start the same business in the premises after it was vacated.

6. Mohd. Ayub v. Mukesh Chand (2012) 2 SCC 155

The hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far greater than the hardship the respondent would suffer by having moved out to another place. We are mindful of the fact that whenever the tenant is asked to move out of the premises some hardship is inherent. We have noted that respondent is in occupation of the premises for a long time. But in our opinion, in the facts of this case that circumstance cannot be sole determinative factor.

7. R.K. Bhatnagar v. Sushila Bhargava, AIR 1987 Delhi 363

He has not filed any site plan wither to show that the site plan filed by the respondent- landlady is incorrect in any way. Hence, I see no reasons to doubt the veracity of the facts stated by the respondent in her affidavit. Likewise, I assume that the site plan filed by her showing the entire accommodation in her occupation is correct.

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Anticipatory Bail in Attempt to Murder Cases (Section 307 IPC) : What is Important to Note [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - While considering the application under Section 438, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedents of the applicant which includes whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction in respect of any cognizable offence, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and whether the accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. [Para 12]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog