SUDESH BANSAL
Narain Das (deceased represented through legal representatives) – Appellant
Versus
Ram Manohar adopted son of Nand Kishore (Since deceased) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. has been preferred by and on behalf of plaintiff-landlord-appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.02.1999 passed in Civil First No.24/1995 by the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby and whereunder while allowing the appeal, filed by respondent-tenant, the first appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1995 passed in Civil Suit No.6/1970 (22/1994) by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity of the rented shop for his son, after comparing comparative hardships between the landlord and the tenant and consequently, the civil suit for eviction has been dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant at length, perused the judgments and record.
3. It appears from perusal of record that initially notices of this second appeal were issued to the respondent-defendant-tenant vide order dated 13.05.1999. Respondent-Defendant-Ram Manohar put in appearance through advocate. Thereafter, having heard learned counsel for both
Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava
Hukum Chandra (Dead) through LRs Vs. Nemi Chand Jain
Jashwant Raj and Ors. Vs. Bata India Limited
Santosh Kumar Jain Vs. Shambhulal Krishna Kumar Suhane
Seshambal (Dead) through LR's Vs. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and Ors.
Damodar lal Vs Sohan Devi and Ors.
C. Doddanarayana Reddy (Dead) by LR's and Ors. Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy (dead) by LR's and Ors.
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide necessity in eviction cases and highlighted the lack of bona fides in pursuing frivolous litigation.
The crucial date for determining the bonafide need of the landlord is the date of institution of the eviction suit, and subsequent events, such as the death of the landlord, do not necessarily result....
since the plaintiff was not starting a new business, which could be started in any other shop, as the requirement was for expanding the existing business by removing the wooden partition and as the b....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove bonafide and reasonable necessity for eviction under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of rent and Eviction)....
Eviction of tenant – Bonafide requirement of landlord proved beyond doubt.
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.