https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286867 The Court dismissed the eviction application, ruling that a prior similar petition's dismissal did not render the current petition maintainable. It was held that the landlord could be considered as occupying a residential building of his own in the city, even if not physically residing there, as long as family members resided with his permission. The judgment clarified legal principles on eviction petitions, finality of prior decisions, and the interpretation of "occupying" in residential buildings. en-us Fri, 10 Feb 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2020 18:43:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286867 The Court dismissed the eviction application, ruling that a prior similar petition's dismissal did not render the current petition maintainable. It was held that the landlord could be considered as occupying a residential building of his own in the city, even if not physically residing there, as long as family members resided with his permission. The judgment clarified legal principles on eviction petitions, finality of prior decisions, and the interpretation of "occupying" in residential buildings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Feb 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286867