Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.M.Sathaye
Ramughraha Ramcharita Tiwari (since deceased through legal hiers) – Appellant
Versus
Alaknanda Gopalkrishna Badale (since deceased through legal representatives) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.M. Sathaye, J.
1. By this application filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short) the purported legal heirs/representatives of original Defendant/Tenant are challenging the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 27.11.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.70 of 1993 by III Ad-hoc District Judge-I, Malegaon, by which the Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.67 of 1986 dated 31.03.1993 by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malegaon, is set aside. By the impugned Decree, the said suit is decreed directing the original Defendant/Tenant to vacate the suit premises.
2. Few facts necessary for disposal of this revision application, are as under. Original Plaintiffs filed the said suit under provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (‘Bombay Rent Act’, for short), for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and for mesne profit from the original Defendant (Ramughraha Ramcharita Tiwari) on the grounds of personal and bona fide requirement, erection of permanent structure without permission of the landlord and nuisance. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendant is a monthly tenant @ Rs.155/- per month. The ori
The heirs of a deceased tenant lack standing to contest an eviction order under rent law unless they can demonstrate a direct legal relationship to the tenant and relevant evidence supporting their c....
Tenant - Revision-applicant who is claiming to be joint tenant of property being son of late original tenant who according to revision-applicant was original tenant of premises in dispute, is neither....
The appellate court must provide detailed reasoning for its decisions, reflecting a conscious application of mind to all issues, while the revisional jurisdiction does not allow for a re-hearing of f....
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 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.
Heirs of a deceased landlord must establish their own bonafide requirement for eviction; the original requirement does not automatically extend to them.
The court upheld the eviction decree based on the landlord's bonafide requirement, emphasizing that subsequent events post-1999 Rent Act cannot negate established needs under the Bombay Rent Act, 194....
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
