https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179165 In eviction proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the Supreme Court reiterated that the genuineness of a landlord's bona fide requirement is ordinarily judged on the date of the eviction application. Subsequent developments during the pendency of the case may be considered only cautiously and only if they materially affect the entitlement to relief. On the facts, the tenant's later development did not extinguish the landlord's established need, and the concurrent findings on bona fide requirement were left undisturbed; the eviction order was upheld. en-us Wed, 07 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:24:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179165 In eviction proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the Supreme Court reiterated that the genuineness of a landlord's bona fide requirement is ordinarily judged on the date of the eviction application. Subsequent developments during the pendency of the case may be considered only cautiously and only if they materially affect the entitlement to relief. On the facts, the tenant's later development did not extinguish the landlord's established need, and the concurrent findings on bona fide requirement were left undisturbed; the eviction order was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179165