Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Nirmal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Bishandas – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Appellants-defendants have filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing judgment and decree dated 14.11.2000 passed by Additional District Judge No.4, Kota in appeal No. 20/99, affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.10.1996 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Kota (South) in Civil Suit No. 650/89 whereby suit for rent and eviction has been decreed in favour of respondent- plaintiff.
2. The relevant facts as culled out from the record are that one shop situated at Chhawni Chauraha, Kota was in tenancy of the defendant Dr. Nirmal Kumar at the rate of Rs.140/- per month. Respondent-plaintiff-landlord instituted a civil suit for eviction against defendants on 28.10.1989, on the ground of default, bonafide and personal necessity and sub-letting invoking the provision of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1950). Plaintiff alleged the necessity of rented shop for his grandson- Mukesh to start the grocery business in the rented shop. Defendant tenant submitted written statement denying the default and bonafide necessity of plaintiff. Defen
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 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 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 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....
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the court must consider the bonafide and reasonable necessity of the landlord for eviction, the comparative hardship between the parties, and....
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.
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide necessity in eviction cases and highlighted the lack of bona fides in pursuing frivolous litigation.
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
