Back
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA
Farukh @ Faruk Khan – Appellant
Versus
Appellate Authority /Additional District Judge – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
1. Heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned counsel along with Sri Dushyant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri P. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mohd. Saleem Khan, learned counsel for the respondents-landlord.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents-landlord submits that he does not want to file any counter affidavit, therefore, with the consent of parties the matter was finally heard and the judgment was reserved.
3. The Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 9.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 1 and the impugned order dated 1.4.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2.
4. The landlord filed a release application for releasing the shop in question on the ground that the shop is needed for his doctor sons for clinic and for using the same as passage, which is required for connecting the landed property behind the shop on which the landlord wants to construct the hospital. It was asserted that no passage is available for connecting the vacant plot to the main road and therefore, present shop, being the longest one, is required for personal need. The same was contested by the petitioner-tenant herein on
Point of law: landlord has got every right to expand his business and in case he requires additional space for it, the need cannot be said to be mala fide. In the present case, there are four doctors....
Point of Law : It is required on the part of petitioner to search accommodation after filing the release application and in the present case there is no dispute that the petitioner had never made any....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's bona fide need for the shop, the comparative hardship between the landlord and the tenant, and the lack of efforts by the tenan....
A landlord's bona fide need for premises does not require proof of dire necessity, and tenants must demonstrate efforts to find alternative accommodation to establish greater hardship.
The court emphasized the importance of considering changed circumstances and the landlord's comparative hardship in determining the bona fide need for release applications.
The central legal point established is that for eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, the landlord must demonstrate a genuine and necessary need for the premises, and the court will respect the....
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
