Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J
Santosh S/o Sampatrao Chhajed – Appellant
Versus
Ajit Jaiwantrao Bhise – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties.
3. The judgment and decree passed in Small Causes Suit No. 7/2022 dated 05/09/2018 by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yavatmal, is under challenge in the present revision application. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original nomenclature.
4. Plaintiff is the landlord, and the defendant is the tenant of the suit premises. The subject matter of suit is the shop Nos. 2 and 4 from the northern side of the commercial complex and other spaces like the godown and hall at the 1st floor constructed over the land bearing Extension No. 38/D, Survey No. 16, admeasuring 3383 Sq.Mtrs. The plaintiff has filed suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. As per the contention of the plaintiff, he became the owner of the suit property on the basis of the deed executed by his grandfather. The suit property was also given on rent by his grandfather by entering into an agreement to defendant for 11 months, which was extended from time to time. As per the agreement, the grandfather of the plaintiff received Rs. 1,00,000/- as a deposit, and the plaintiff w
The landlord's bonafide requirement for personal use outweighs the tenant's claims of hardship, especially when supported by evidence of the landlord's need and the tenant's lack of a valid business ....
Landlord's bona fide need for property doesn’t require dire necessity; tenant's livelihood claims must prove attempts for alternative accommodations.
The court held that the landlord's demonstrated bona fide need for the property justified the eviction despite tenant claims 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 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 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 judgment establishes the principles of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship in the context of eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
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 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.
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
