Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.M.SATHAYE
Bertha Carvalho (Since Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Baldwin Joseph Francis D' Souza (Since deceased) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SATHAYE, J.
1. This Petition is filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 05/03/1993, passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Mumbai in Appeal No. 101 of 1987 arising out of judgment and decree dated 06/11/1986 in R.A.E. Suit No. 1247/6504 of 1975 passed by Small Causes Court, Mumbai in the said Suit. During the pendency of the Petition, the Petition was amended and the Order dated 6/04/2016, passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai confirmed by Order dated 28/11/2016 by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal No. 34 of 2016, came to be challenged. By the said impugned Judgdments/Orders, the Petitioners’ suit for eviction of Respondents, under provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short “the Rent Act), is dismissed.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, few facts necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:
2.1) The Petitioners are landlords and Respondents are tenants in respect of Flat No. 1A situated on 1st floor, Alvorada building situated on plot no. 317, Off. St. Roques Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai -400050, which is the subject matter property (hereinafter referred to as “t
The court reaffirmed that landlords have the primary right to determine their bona fide residential needs, absent clear evidence of bad faith or legal impropriety.
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 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 judgment establishes the principles of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship in the context of eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
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 personal requirement of the plaintiffs as Sebaits and beneficiaries of the Debuttar estate is sufficient to maintain a suit for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997.
The court upheld the eviction order, confirming the landlords' bona fide need for the tenanted premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, despite the tenants' claims of independent tenancy.
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
