Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Jilajeet Satyanarayan Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Chandrabali Rajnarayan Shukla (since deceased) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep V. Marne, J.)
1) Applicants have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set up a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 30 March 2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing Appeal No. 48/2013 and confirming the eviction decree dated 6 September 2013 passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in RA.E. Suit No.196/479 of 2003. The eviction of the Applicants is ultimately upheld by the Appellate Court on the solitary ground of bonafide requirement of the Plaintiff.
2) Facts of the case, as pleaded in the plaint, are that Plaintiff claims ownership in respect of the property bearing Stable No. 93, comprising of 30 Khilas, Godown 20 ft x 15 ft and an open space 15 ft x 20 ft, situated at Chandrabali Rajnarayan Shukla Stable, Pump House, Jijamata Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 (suit premises). The original Defendant was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises sometime in the year 1970. It appears that Plaintiff had earlier filed R.A.E. Suit No. 699/3681 of 1972 against the original Defendant for his eviction, but a settlement took place be
The bonafide requirement for eviction must be established and maintained throughout proceedings, and admissions in cross-examination do not negate established needs.
Heirs of a deceased landlord must establish their own bonafide requirement for eviction; the original requirement does not automatically extend to them.
The death of a landlord necessitates that a legal heir must establish their own bonafide requirement for premises independently, distinguishing it from the deceased's claims.
The judgment establishes the principles of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship in the context of eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
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 ruled that a landlord's claim for eviction on grounds of bonafide requirement is not established when evidence shows availability of alternate premises and no genuine need.
The court affirmed that a landlord's bonafide requirement for eviction is best judged by the landlord, and a constituted attorney can testify on behalf of the landlord regarding personal knowledge of....
The need of the landlords for the tenanted premises for providing commercial accommodation to their adult sons for starting independent business is genuine and the finding of the Trial Court does not....
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.
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
