<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1981 (4) TMI 272 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179166</link>
    <description>In a landlord&#039;s eviction claim based on bona fide personal requirement, the court must consider subsequent events up to final appellate disposal, including acquisition of other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation by the landlord. On the facts stated, the landlord&#039;s later possession of a major portion of the same building defeated the requirement under section 12(1)(f), and the tenant could rely on the changed circumstances. A separate claim for eviction on the ground of reconstruction under section 12(1)(h) had to be examined independently, and any grant of eviction on that basis required consideration of the tenant&#039;s statutory right of re-entry under section 18. The eviction decree was therefore set aside and the reconstruction issue remanded for fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:24:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (4) TMI 272 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179166</link>
      <description>In a landlord&#039;s eviction claim based on bona fide personal requirement, the court must consider subsequent events up to final appellate disposal, including acquisition of other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation by the landlord. On the facts stated, the landlord&#039;s later possession of a major portion of the same building defeated the requirement under section 12(1)(f), and the tenant could rely on the changed circumstances. A separate claim for eviction on the ground of reconstruction under section 12(1)(h) had to be examined independently, and any grant of eviction on that basis required consideration of the tenant&#039;s statutory right of re-entry under section 18. The eviction decree was therefore set aside and the reconstruction issue remanded for fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179166</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>