Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Pushpa Mathur W/o Shri Harish Mathur – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Somani W/o Late Ramjeevan Chitlangiya – Respondent
Judgment
1. The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by appellant-defendant-tenant assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2016 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.43/2013 by the Additional District Judge No.1, Sikar whereby and whereunder dismissing the appeal and affired the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.89/2009 by the Civil Judge (Sr.D.) Dataramgarh, Sikar whereby and whereunder the civil suit for rent and eviction filed by the respondent-landlord has been decreed.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant, perused the impugned judgments and record.
3. It is not in dispute that the suit property is a residential in nature and situated at Bay, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar and is in tenancy of the appellant-defendant. The respondent-plaintiff alleging his necessity of the rented property, terminated the tenancy of defendant vide notice dated 15.08.2009. Plaintiff also claimed due rent w.e.f. 20.05.2008 @Rs.200/- per month. The defendant has not disputed the receipt of notice but had denied the alleged necessity of plaintiff and termination of his tenancy.
4. The trial court, vide judgment dated 09.11.2011 decided is
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are upheld unless proven to be perverse or legally flawed.
The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law; it should not reassess factual findings.
The court reinforced that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding unless proven erroneous, particularly in eviction cases under the Rent Control Act.
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 established that eviction can be granted based on bona fide necessity when the tenant's claim of occupying multiple rooms is not substantiated by evidence.
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.
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 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 importance of substantial questions of law in Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC and the principles of lease termination, landlord's right to possession, and lease termination notice requirement....
The tenant's eviction was justified based on the landlord's bona fide need under the Jharkhand Building Act, despite tenant's claims of hardship.
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
