SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(MP) 344

R.C.LAHOTI
Sushila Devi d/o Ramsingh – Appellant
Versus
Maharajsingh Devisingh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.K.JAIN, R.A.Roman,

JUDGMENT :

( 1. ) "while the Rent Control Legislation has given a number of facilities to the tenants it should not be construed so as to destroy the limited relief which it seeks to give the landlord also. For instance one of the grounds for eviction which is contained in almost all the Rent Control Acts in the country is the question of landlords bona fide personal necessity. The concept of bona fide necessity should be meaningfully construed so as to make the relief granted to the landlord real and practical".

Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti, AIR 1980 SC 161. In context with Delhi Rent Control Act, the Apex Court observed - this is a beneficial legislation, beneficial to both the landlord and the tenant. It protects the tenant against unreasonable eviction and exorbitant rent. It also ensures certain limited rights to the landlord to recover possession on stated contingencies. Ganpat Ram v. Gayatri Devi, AIR 1987 SC 2016. tenants in all cases are not the weaker sections. There are those who are weak both among the landlords as well as the tenants. Prabhakaran Nair v. State of T. N. , AIR 1987 SC 2117. Only this much by way of prologue.

( 2. ) THE plaintiff-landlord, whose suit for ejectm

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top