Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Krishan Murarilal – Appellant
Versus
Madan Lal (deceased) – Respondent
ORDER
1. Appellants-tenants have filed this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree for eviction dated 03.03.2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 45/1998 by Civil Judge (SD) Bayana, Bharatpur, which has been affirmed in the First Appeal 14/2001 vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.2003 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bayana (Bharatpur).
2. The rented premise is a shop in question situated at Railway Station, Bajariya, Bayana alleged to be in tenancy of the predecessors of defendants since 21st October, 1961. Appellants are successors of original tenant Sh. Bajanlal and Sh. Manoharlal. Respondents-landlords filed eviction suit on 21.02.1995 on the ground of default, bona fide and personal necessity and material alteration invoking the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. It was alleged that defendants have neither paid nor tendered rent for the period from 06.06.1994 to 20.02.1995. The last paid rate of rent was Rs.150/- per month; the shop was purchased for the need of Sh. Purshotam, who is a married but unemployed person and wants to start a restaurant and rest-house in the rented shop. Defendant-tenants filed writ
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide necessity in eviction cases and highlighted the lack of bona fides in pursuing frivolous litigation.
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 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.
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 landlord is obligated to plead and prove the availability of alternate accommodation and its unsuitability for the alleged need, as per the provisions of section 12(1)(f) of the Accommodation Con....
Eviction of tenant – Bonafide requirement of landlord proved beyond doubt.
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
