Back
KARAMJIT SINGH
Tarun Medicos – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction petition and factual background (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's analysis of landlord's need (Para 6 , 9) |
| 3. arguments regarding necessity and bona fides (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. landlord's discretion over property requirement (Para 10) |
| 5. conclusion and order regarding possession (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Karamjit Singh, J. (Oral)
This order will dispose of the present civil revision petition filed by the Petitioner-tenant seeking setting aside order of eviction dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby the rent petition filed by the Respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and judgment dated 6.10.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the eviction order dated 12.10.2022, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent being landlord filed eviction petition against the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner took the shop in dispute on rent @ Rs. 18,000/- per annum besides house/property tax and electricity charges and it was settled between the par
Landlords possess the right to evict tenants based on bona fide personal necessity, which is not undermined by their ownership of other properties deemed unsuitable for their intended use.
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
