Back
SANDIP KUMAR CHANDRABHAN MORE
Anandkumar – Appellant
Versus
Satishkumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sandip Kumar Chandrabhan More, J.)
1. The present applicant who is original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 92 of 2014 has challenged the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jalna ("the First Appellate Court" for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 157 of 2018, whereby the eviction order against the present applicant has been passed, by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalna ("the learned Trial Court" for short).
2. Brief facts of the present application is as under :
The applicant is the tenant in suit house bearing No. Municipal Plate No. 1-20-10, CTS No. 966, admeasuring 113.7 Sq. Meter situated at Rajendra Prasad Road, New Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. The present respondent is original plaintiff and landlord, who filed the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 92 of 2014 for eviction of the applicant - tenant on the ground of default in-payment of rent as well as bona fide and reasonable requirement. According to the respondent - landlord, the applicant - tenant had agreed to pay rent of the suit house of Rs. 550/- per month, but the applicant - tenant was n
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.
The landlord's bona fide requirement for additional living space for a growing family takes precedence over a tenant's claim to a property used occasionally for health benefits.
The bona fide requirement for landlord's premises must be substantiated with evidence, and landlords retain the right to determine their needs for personal or business use.
The court established that a landlord's genuine need for premises must be objectively assessed, and failure to seek alternative accommodation can negate a tenant's claim of hardship.
The landlord's requirement for eviction must be proven as reasonable and bona fide, with consideration of alternative accommodations for both parties.
The judgment establishes the principles of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship in the context of eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
The court held that the landlord's demonstrated bona fide need for the property justified the eviction despite tenant claims of hardship.
The landlord is the best judge of the bonafide need, and the choice of suitable premises is a subjective exercise.
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
