AI Overview

AI Overview...

  • Person Earning Bread for Family from One Property for Two Decades Cannot be Evicted - The right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution includes protection from eviction, especially when the individual has been earning and supporting their family from a single property for a long period (Sources: 01100115122, 87.10). The courts recognize that eviction in such cases would deprive the person of their fundamental right to life and livelihood.
  • Legal Provisions on Eviction and Occupation Rights - Section 21 of the Act grants aggrieved persons the right to appeal eviction orders before a District Judge, emphasizing procedural safeguards in eviction cases. Additionally, the requirement for genuine need (e.g., for the landlord or family occupation) is a key factor in eviction disputes, with courts scrutinizing the necessity and authenticity of such claims (Sources: XIII of 1972, IND_Delhi_RCREV-508_2017).
  • Property Rights and Unauthorized Transfers - Courts have taken measures to prevent unauthorized sale or transfer of property, especially when such acts are clandestine or intended to deprive rightful owners or tenants of their rights. Injunctions are often used to restrain illegal alienation of land, underscoring the importance of legal procedures in property transactions (Sources: 01300021960).
  • Social and Cultural Considerations in Rights Claims - Certain community-specific rights, such as those related to maintaining unshorn hair for Sikhs, are protected, indicating that personal and cultural identity rights are also recognized within legal frameworks (Sources: 02300015409).
  • Evictions and Compensation Issues - Eviction processes sometimes involve financial pressures, such as deductions from VRS amounts or other coercive measures, which courts have scrutinized to ensure fairness and legality, especially when occupants are forcibly evicted without proper procedures (Sources: 00400023178, 00400018303).
    Analysis and Conclusion:
    The core insight from these sources is that individuals who have supported their families through long-term occupancy or property rights are protected under constitutional and legal provisions against eviction, especially when such eviction would deprive them of their livelihood. Courts emphasize procedural fairness, genuine need, and the protection of fundamental rights, including livelihood and cultural identity. Unauthorized property transfers and illegal eviction practices are subject to judicial scrutiny and injunctions. Overall, the law favors protecting long-standing occupants and those earning their livelihood from property, reinforcing the principle that eviction cannot be arbitrarily or unjustly enforced against such persons.

Search Results for "Person Earning Bread for Family from One Property for Two Decades Cannot be Evicted"

Lal Chand Goyal VS IInd Additional District Judge Saharanpur

1999 0 Supreme(All) 1605 India - Allahabad

S.P.SRIVASTAVA

XIII of 1972 gives rig tit to the aggrieved person by order under SECTION 21 of the Act to file an appeal before the District Judge. The tenant had filed the appeal when was ordered to be evicted under SECTION 21. ... A perusal of the relevant provision would show that it only says that the landlord requires it for occupation by himself or any member of his family or any person in whose benefit it is, held by him either for residential purpose or for any other purpose, trade or calling or any person for....

Gurleen Kaur VS State Of Punjab

2009 0 Supreme(P&H) 1046 India - Punjab and Haryana

AJAY K.MITTAL, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JASBIR SINGH

not to extend any benefit which is otherwise available to a Sikh, to a person who does not maintain his hair unshorn, its determination ... We are of the view that the aberrations at the hands of the petitioners cannot be ignored. ... These aberrations, according to the petitioners, cannot be included in the same bracket as an act in conflict with law. ... Similarly, a Sikh born into a Sikh family cannot claim to be a Sahajdhari Sikh by trimming/cutting his/her hair, beard or eye-brows in any manner." .....

Baroda Rayon Employees Ekta Union VS Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd.

2015 0 Supreme(Guj) 258 India - Gujarat

S.R.BRAHMBHATT

Thus it is clear that the property in question was sought to be surreptitiously sold to the family members of the director. ... or to transfer or to otherwise alienate such property and land to any other person. ... (pp. 83-84)" ... The said order was in two parts wherein firstly the company was injuncted from selling the land and properties to any person or to transfer or otherwise alienate such land and property to any other person. ... Howev....

Bombay Environmental Action Group VS State of Maharashtra

2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 1458 India - Bombay

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

C. 244, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that in a case arising under the MRTP Act that the State Government cannot deprive a person of his land under the provisions of the said act without acquiring the land. ... A number of occupants residing within the NTC mills have been forcibly evicted and in order to pressurize others to leave, large sums of money ranging from about Rs. one lakh to Rs. two lakhs are being deducted from the VRS amounts of each worker who is occupying a tenement in the NTC Mi....

Bombay Environmental Action Group VS State of Maharashtra

2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 1453 India - Bombay

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, S.RADHAKRISHNAN

C. 244, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that in a case arising under the MRTP Act that the State Government cannot deprive a person of his land under the provisions of the said act without acquiring the land. ... A number of occupants residing within the NTC mills have been forcibly evicted and in order to pressurize others to leave, large sums of money ranging from about Rs. one lakh to Rs. two lakhs are being deducted from the VRS amounts of each worker who is occupying a tenement in the NTC Mi....

W.H. BRADY & CO. LTD vs SARITA JAIN

India - Delhi High Court

and butter of the landlord and his family members, fulfill the said requirement from a low rent yielding property. ... A need to fulfill the requirement for premises from low rent yielding property and not from a high rent yielding property cannot in my view be said to be not genuine. ... sides and has approximately 26 feet wide road in front, the property No.7575, Tel Mill Street, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi is only one side open and having a nar....

W.H. BRADY & CO. LTD vs SARITA JAIN

India - Delhi High Court

and butter of the landlord and his family members, fulfill the said requirement from a low rent yielding property. ... A need to fulfill the requirement for premises from low rent yielding property and not from a high rent yielding property cannot in my view be said to be not genuine. ... sides and has approximately 26 feet wide road in front, the property No.7575, Tel Mill Street, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi is only one side open and having a nar....

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs MR. AMAR SINGH BHALLA

2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 8065 India - High Court of Delhi

He only says that he is the sole bread earning [13] member of his family. A natural corollary of the said statement follows that the contemnor must be doing some work to earn his livelihood. ... On 12.10.2022, the contemnor appeared in person and he undertook that he would make the entire payment along with interest within two months. He was directed to file a duly attested affidavit to the effect of his undertaking within a period of one week. ... He also submits that the contemnor ha....

AJAY MAKEN & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 1187 India - High Court of Delhi

Two Ministries of the Central Government cannot talk in two different voices. ... any event matters little to the evicted who the evictor is. ... 87.10 The Court then drew two conclusions: one, that the right to life which is conferred by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and two, that it is established that if the petitioners are evicted ... In order to be eligible the beneficiary family “should not own a pucca house eit....

Ajay Maken vs Union of India

India - Delhi High Court

S.MURALIDHAR, VIBHU BAKHRU

Two Ministries of the Central Government cannot talk in two different voices. ... to the evicted who the evictor is. ... The Court then drew two conclusions: one, that the right to life which is conferred by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and two, that it is established that if the petitioners are evicted from their dwellings, they will be deprived of their livelihood. ... Two decades later, a `New U....

SupremeToday Landscape Ad
SupremeToday Portrait Ad

Legal Issues on Supreme Today AI

back ground Icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top