Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.
RAJ KISHORE MAKANI – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
VIDYA SAGAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5839 OF 2005
Decided On : 15-02-2017
bonafide requirement - landlord and tenant - The court upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority, and the High Court, confirming the bonafide requirement of the landlord and the ownership of the premises by the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-tenant challenged the order of the High Court, which upheld the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority regarding the bonafide requirement of the respondents and their ownership of the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court concurred with the findings of the lower forums and dismissed the appeal, granting the appellant time to hand over possession of the premises to the respondents and ordering payment of use and occupation charges.
Issues: Challenge to the findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority, and the High Court regarding the bonafide requirement of the respondents and their ownership of the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the bonafide requirement of the respondents and their ownership of the premises, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted time to hand over possession of the premises to the respondents, with an order to pay use and occupation charges.
JUDGMENT
Kurian, J.
The appellant-tenant has challenged the order dated 29.01.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 490 of 2004.
2. The High Court concurred with the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and dismissed the Revision. Though the learned counsel made a persuasive attempt to say that there is perversity in the findings recorded by the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority and the High Court, having gone through the materials available on record, we see no reason to take a different view, which is concurrently taken by all the three Forums. The bonafide requirement of the respondents is an undisturbed finding. There is also no basis for the challenge to their title. The clear finding is that the respondents had become owners of the premises.
3. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. However, the appellant is granted time up to 31st December, 2017 to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to Respondent No. 1, who shall take possession for and on behalf of the other respondents, subject to filing the usual undertaking in this Court within a period of two weeks from today.
5. Towards use and occupation charges, the appellant shall pay Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) per month with effect from March, 2017 to Respondent No. 1. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
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
