Back
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Govind – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Kumar – Respondent
JUDGEMENT
1. Heard finally.
2. This second appeal has been filed under section 100 of CPC against the judgement and decree dated 28.4.2014, passed by the 16th Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No.10/2013, by which the judgement and decree dated 29.8.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class – II, Indore in COS No.41-A/2011 for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act of 1961') has been affirmed.
3. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 9.4.2015 on the following substantial questions of law :--
“(a) Whether the learned Courts below have erred in law in passing the decree for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Although the respondent has sufficient accommodation available with him?
(b) Whether the tenancy for the appellant was terminated by respondent as per requirements of law and, hence, decree for eviction is contrary to provisions of law?”
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS.
4. Since there are as many as seven Interlocutory Applications filed by the Appellant/defendant, either to bring additional documents on record or to amend the written statement, it is necessary to decide t
Landlords must demonstrate bona fide requirements for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act; non-use of premises for six months provides grounds for eviction.
The landlord is obligated to plead and prove the availability of alternate accommodation and its unsuitability for the alleged need, as per the provisions of section 12(1)(f) of the Accommodation Con....
The Court emphasized the presumption of bona fide need in favor of the Landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the restrictive scope of interference by the High Court in re....
Landlords can seek tenant eviction based on bona fide need, despite owning other properties nearby, provided alternatives do not meet their specific business requirements.
The landlord's authorization to file an eviction petition, the bona-fide need for the tenanted shop, and the unavailability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation were central to the court'....
The landlord's bonafide need for the tenanted premises, the landlord's subjective choice in selecting suitable accommodation, and the limited scope of the court's revisional jurisdiction were the cen....
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
