Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
M.M.SATHAYE
Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti – Appellant
Versus
Govindram Shobharam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction suit for bona fide need, non-user. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on tenancy post-demolition, bona fides. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. tenancy survives building demolition under mrc act. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. bona fide need determined at suit filing. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. demolition does not extinguish landlord's need. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. non-user proved absent reasonable cause. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. no hardship; tenant has alternatives. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 8. perverse appellate order set aside; eviction restored. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SATHAYE, J.
1. This Civil Revision Application under section 115 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 (‘CPC’ for short) is filed by Plaintiff-landlord challenging the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 12/09/2024 passed by District Judge-2, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2018. By the said impugned Judgment and Decree, the said appeal filed by Respondent-Tenant was allowed, thereby setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 03/07/2018 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Sangli in Regular Civil Suit No. 267 of 2010, thereby dismissing the said suit.
Tenancy subsists post-building demolition under rent laws as demise includes land; bona fide eviction need assessed at suit filing survives unless subsequent events completely eclipse it; non-user pr....
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.
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 judgment establishes the principles of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship in the context of eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
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 requirement for eviction must be proven as reasonable and bona fide, with consideration of alternative accommodations for both parties.
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
