VALMIKI J.MEHTA
Lahorian Di Hatti – Appellant
Versus
Shyam Lal Meher Chand Jain Huf – Respondent
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
R.C. Revision No. 242 of 2012 and C.M. Nos. 11866 of 2014 (for stay) & 11868 of 2014 (for bringing on record additional evidence/document)
2. There are tenants in the city of Delhi who earn lacs and lacs of rupees from the tenanted premises and obviously they are entitled to whatever amount they can from their business, but once the landlords need bona-fidely the tenanted premises, tenants cannot create obstacles to eviction, which efforts are obviously aided and supported by very passionate arguments of their counsel.
3. In the present case, the landlord requires the suit premises for the bona-fide commercial needs of his son who is doing a property consultant business and also for the bona-fide need of his daughter-in-law who is a management graduate and wants to open a boutique of ladies wear and for which purpose the suit premises, which are a huge premises of approximately 40’1.6” x 19’ in size on ground floor along-with the mezzanine floor (penchhatti) covering about 3/4th (27’8” x 19’10”) of the area of the shop, are ideally suited.
4. The bona-fide necessity petition has
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.