Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Panchu Lal – Appellant
Versus
Heera Lal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-tenant has filed this second appeal assailing the decree for eviction passed on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity of the shop in question to the respondent- landlord. The shop in question situated at Mewadi Bazar, Beawar and in tenancy of the appellant-defendant prior to 1982.
2. The relevant facts, as culled out from the record, are that respondent-landlord led a civil suit for eviction in relation to rented shop way back on 24.01.1987 alleging bona fide necessity of himself and later on for his son-Ashok Kumar. Initially the suit was filed against the original tenant-Panchu Lal who contested the suit and filed his written statement. The trial court, recorded the evidence of both parties and find that the landlord is having bona fide and reasonable necessity of the rented shop. It was found that the landlord was not having any alternative shop. The trial court, after impleadment of Shri Milap Chand as legal representative of deceased-defendant tenant, continued the eviction proceedings. The trial court passed the eviction decree after appreciation of evidence of both parties on the issue of bona fide necessity of the shop in question. The fir
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....
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....
Landlords have the right to determine their business needs, and tenants cannot dictate terms regarding business locations; bona fide necessity must be proven for eviction.
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
