SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Guj) 167

Y.B.BHATT
ASHWINBHAI C. SHETH – Appellant
Versus
BANK OF BARODA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: H.B.SHAH, SHAILESH PARIKH, UDAY R.BHATT

Y. B. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision under section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Bombay Rent Act for short) at the instance of the original plaintiff-landlord, who sued the respondent defendant-tenant for a decree of eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 2 ) THE landlord sued for a decree of eviction on two grounds. The first ground was that the landlord required the premises reasonably and bonafide for his own requirements. Secondly, the eviction was sought on the ground of non-user of the rented premises by the tenant for a continuous period of six months immediately prior to the date of the suit i. e. under section 13 (1) (k) of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 3 ) THE trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the landlord on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement, but found on the facts and evidence on record that the landlord had established non-user of the rented premises on the part of the tenant for a continuous period of six months immediately prior to the suit, and therefore passed a decree under section 13 (1) (k) of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 4 ) THE tenant being agg
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top