Back
Supreme Court Of India
A.P. MISRA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
CHANDER BHAN
Versus
RAM DAYAL -Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 4962 of 2000
decided on September 8, 2000
Bona Fide Need - Tenants Appeal Against Eviction Order - The court dismissed the tenant's appeal against an eviction order based on the landlord's bona fide need for his son to do business at the disputed shop, considering the changed circumstances and the landlord's old age.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant appealed against an eviction order based on the landlord's bona fide need for his son to do business at the disputed shop. The tenant argued that the landlord's son was doing business at a different location, and the ground of bona fide need had no merit due to changed circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the additional point raised in the counter-affidavit, which stated that the landlord's grandsons were grown up and could look after the business at the current location. The court also noted that the landlord's reason for wanting his son settled at the disputed location was his old age and the son's ability to look after both him and the business. Despite the delay in the case and the tenant's shift to another place for livelihood, the court found no reason to interfere with the eviction order.
Issues: The main issue was the landlord's bona fide need for his son to do business at the disputed shop, and whether the changed circumstances and delay in the case affected the merit of the eviction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the landlord's reasons for needing his son at the disputed location, the changed circumstances, and the delay in the case. It found that the landlord's bona fide need persisted despite the changed circumstances and the tenant's shift to another place for livelihood.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's appeal and ordered the tenant to vacate the premises by or before 31-3-2001, subject to the usual undertaking to be filed by the tenant within three weeks from the date of the judgment. Costs were imposed on the parties.
ORDER
1.Leave granted.
2.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This is the tenants appeal against eviction order passed by the courts below, on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. The decree was passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. The appellants second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court. The ground of bona fide need is for his son for doing general merchant business at the disputed shop at Alwar. Submission for the appellant is that he is doing business at Delhi, hence this ground has no merit. This is the changed circumstance which is referred in the counter-affidavit. We have considered this additional point which has been stated in the counter-affidavit, coupled with the fact also disclosed in it that now• his grandsons are grown up who could look after the business at Delhi. The reason why the landlord wants his son settled at Alwar is that he has grown old and the son doing business can do both. looking after him and the business. This suit for eviction was filed in 1975. On account of delay in disposal of this case, alternatively he shifted to another place to earn his livelihood, but if his own shop is available. the reason for bona fide need on the fact of this case does not cease.
4. On the facts and circumstances, we do not find it to befit case to interfere with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. On the fact of this case, after hearing counsel for the parties we order the appellant tenant to vacate the premises by or before 31-3-2001 subject to the usual undertaking to be filed by him, in this Court, within three weeks from today. Costs on the parties.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
