Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Murlimanohar Textiles – Appellant
Versus
Mangal Chand – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant-defendant-tenant (hereinafter referred as ’tenant’) has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2000 passed in Civil first appeal No.46/1998 by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer, affirming the judgment and decree for rent and eviction dated 17.04.1998 passed in Civil Suit No.72/1997 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, Ajmer.
2. On perusal of record, it transpires that the rented premise is a shop situated at Sarvahi Darwaja, Kishangarh, Ajmer which was in tenancy of tenant at the rate of Rs.35/- per month. On 19.11.1993, respondent-landlord instituted civil suit for eviction on the ground of default, bonafide and reasonable necessity under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 1950’).
3. The tenant has admitted his tenancy, however, disputed the ground of eviction and contested the eviction suit.
4. The trial Court, after recording evidence of both parties vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.1998, decreed eviction suit on the ground of bonafide and perso
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 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 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.
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.
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
