SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 160

R.M.SAHAI, T.K.THOMMEN
Dinanath – Appellant
Versus
Gopala Krishna – Respondent


Judgment

 This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 528/ 84. The High Court held that the respondent-land lord has satisfied the requirements of clause (1) of section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (Act No. 22 of 1961). The High Court found:

"But however the test of bona fide and reasonableness will have to be determined with reference to the financial capacity and the sanction of the plan etc. That the landlord has got sufficient financial capacity is not disputed by the other side. He has also produced sanctioned plan. Therefore, though the Revisional Court has erred in opining that the bona fide and reasonableness need not be proved, the material on record amply proves the same."

2. Section 21 (1)(1) reads:

"21. Protection of tenants against eviction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or other authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant:

Provided that the court may, on an application made to it, make an order for the recovery of possession of a









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today 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