Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Kanahaiya Lal Arya – Appellant
Versus
Md. Ehshan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Smt. Reshmi Rea Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-landlord and Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned senior counsel for the respondents-tenant.
3. The dispute in this appeal is for the eviction of the respondents-tenant from the premises in dispute i.e., a house existing on Holding No. 80, New Ward No. X, (Old Ward No. IV, Old Holding No. 211) of Chatra Municipality, Jharkhand.
4. The appellant, as the owner and landlord of the said house, filed Eviction Suit No.25/2001 against the respondents- tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and refusal to vacate; and for personal need of the suit premises for establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons.
5. The suit after contest was decreed by the court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 15.07.2006 on the ground of bona fide need of the appellant-landlord holding that the oral and documentary evidence proves the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord to install the ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons. The appellant-landlord had established his capability to purchase such a machine and had proved his annual income to be Rs.4,00
Eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide need of landlord – Landlord is the best Judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need – Tenant has no role i....
Tenancy and Land Lord - Bona fide & ‘need’ - If a landlord is in genuine and bona fide need of a tenanted portion, tenant cannot legally raise the issue that space available with landlord is adequate....
The court upheld that the prior rejection of eviction does not bar a legitimate subsequent application based on evolving needs.
The landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction is established even if he owns other properties, and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's use of his properties.
Landlord's bona fide need for property doesn’t require dire necessity; tenant's livelihood claims must prove attempts for alternative accommodations.
The financial condition of the landlord does not determine the bona fide need for accommodation.
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
