https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272733 Eviction under rent control law was rejected on both pleaded grounds. On alleged subletting, assignment, or parting with possession, the courts treated the issue as one of fact, found no proof of unauthorized transfer of possession, and the revision court declined interference because no legal error or misapplication of the governing test was shown. On personal requirement, the landlord had to prove both bona fide need and absence of other suitable accommodation; the courts found sufficient alternative accommodation, so the statutory condition was not met and eviction failed. Concurrent factual findings on these issues were therefore left undisturbed in revision. en-us Wed, 05 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 May 2018 18:08:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272733 Eviction under rent control law was rejected on both pleaded grounds. On alleged subletting, assignment, or parting with possession, the courts treated the issue as one of fact, found no proof of unauthorized transfer of possession, and the revision court declined interference because no legal error or misapplication of the governing test was shown. On personal requirement, the landlord had to prove both bona fide need and absence of other suitable accommodation; the courts found sufficient alternative accommodation, so the statutory condition was not met and eviction failed. Concurrent factual findings on these issues were therefore left undisturbed in revision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272733