Back
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Kapoor Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jang Bahadur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to eviction for bona fide necessity. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on bona fide necessity and non-payment of rent. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. landlord's case for eviction supported by testimonials. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. petitioner's financial difficulties and its impact on the case. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's decision to dismiss the petition and order possession. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has challenged the judgments dated 20.05.2019 and 22.03.2023 whereby the Rent Controller has allowed the rent petition preferred by the respondent/landlord for eviction from demised premises on account of bona fide necessity and the appeal filed there against by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition for eviction has been erroneously allowed although the respondent/landlord could not make out a case for bona fide necessity.
3. Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and submits that the respondent has been able to prove the case for eviction and the
The landlord's requirement for eviction should be based on occupation rather than ownership of other properties within the same municipal limits.
The landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal necessity must not be in occupation of any other property within the same urban area, as per Section 13 of the Act.
Bona fide requirement for eviction is determined by the landlord's genuine need, not dictated by tenant's preferences.
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
