Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Natural Gas Supplies Prioritized Under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act Amid LNG Disruptions: Central Govt Order
11 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
INDERJEET SINGH
Hazi Mohammed Ayub Khan – Appellant
Versus
Gulamuddin – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
(Inderjeet Singh, J.)
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as 'Landlord') challenging the order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as 'tenant') was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in favour of the landlord was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the landlord filed eviction application before the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer against the tenant on the ground of bona-fide need of the shop in dispute for his son i.e. Shabir Khan and the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer vide its judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016 allowed the eviction application filed by the landlord. Thereafter, the tenant filed appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer and the same was allowed and the judgment passed by
The landlord's bonafide requirement for the premises and the landlord's right to choose a suitable premise for carrying on the business are key legal principles established in the judgment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's sole discretion in determining genuine accommodation requirements and the requirement for honest and untainted motives in establi....
The court established that a landlord's bona fide need for premises must be genuine, and the existence of alternate accommodations must be evaluated in context.
Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi
-
Read summaryMaganlal v. Nanasaheb
-
Read summarySait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal AIR 2006 SC 770
-
Read summaryShamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.