Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Nandlal – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Hamid – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant-defendant-tenant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, challenging the decree for eviction passed in respect of his rented shop on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity by the Court of Additional District Judge No.4, Sikar in first appeal No.24/2015 vide judgment dated 2.2.2019 and resultantly, the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2015 passed in civil suit No.65/2002 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sikar dismissing plaintiff's suit for eviction, has been set aside.
2. Heard counsel for appellant at length and perused the record.
3. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that shop in question situated at Mochiwada Raod, Sikar is in tenancy of appellant- defendant since 1960. Respondents-plaintiffs purchased the suit shop through registered sale deed dated 21.8.2002 along with whole property wherein shop in question is situated, from its owner and landlord of appellant namely Kishan Lal. Appellant- defendant does not dispute that the transfer of his tenanted shop to respondent-plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 21.8.2002 and attorn respondent-plaintiff as his landlord and continue to pay the rent to him. After p
The landlord is the best judge of his need and the court cannot advise the landlord to compromise his necessity for the benefit of the tenant.
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)....
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide necessity in eviction cases and highlighted the lack of bona fides in pursuing frivolous litigation.
For the purpose of bonafide necessity, the landlord can file an eviction suit for the necessity of his grandson if the grandson is a family member and dependent on him. The issue of bonafide necessit....
The term 'family' in Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 should be interpreted liberally and practically. If the landlord's grandson is a family member a....
The burden of proof for subletting under Rent Control laws and the criteria for establishing subletting were the central legal principles established in the judgment.
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 court upheld the landlord's right to evict the tenant based on the default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide need for the shop, as provided under the Rent Act.
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
