Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V.MARNE
Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya – Appellant
Versus
Manohar Vithoba Kuntha (since Deceased through Legal Heirs) – Respondent
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1) This Revision Application is filed challenging the decree dated 8 October 2021 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing Appeal No. 376/2017 filed by the Applicant/Defendant No.2 and confirming the eviction decree dated 26 October 2017 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court directing the Defendants to handover possession of the suit premises in addition to conduct of enquiry into mesne profits.
2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that, Plaintiffs are owners and landlords in respect of the property known as Building No.4 situated on plot of land bearing CTS No.425, 12th lane, Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai 400 008. Defendant No.1 was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of Shop No.1 on the ground floor of the said Building No.4 on monthly rent of Rs.400/-, which are the ‘suit premises’. Plaintiff instituted R.A.E. Suit No.253/426 of 2011 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises alleging unauthorised subletting by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2. Plaintiff also claimed the ground of non-user as well as bonafide requirement of the landlord. The suit was resisted by Defendant No.2 by fil
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 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 judgment establishes the principles of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship in the context of eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
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 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 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.
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
