Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
ALOK AWASTHI
Bheru Singh – Appellant
Versus
Seemabai – Respondent
ORDER :
1. With the consent of parties, matter was heard finally.
2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) read with Section 23-E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1961") being aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in case No.0024/B 121/2024-25 whereby the application filed under Section 23(A) of the Act, 1961 for vacating the rented premises and recovery of arrears of rent, against the respondent, has been allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent's house is situated at Krishnanagar Colony, Village Kamalya, Shujalpur, District Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh, Survey No. 175 area is 500 sq. ft. The respondent's husband acquired possession of the said house by purchasing it from the previous owner through a registered sale deed No. 623 dated 17.06.1997. The respondent's husband decided to shift to Shajapur in the year 2004 and the said house was rented for residential purposes at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month to the petitioner.
4. Further, on 14.10.2013, after the
Landlord's bona fide need for property doesn’t require dire necessity; tenant's livelihood claims must prove attempts for alternative accommodations.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving landlord-tenant relationship, genuine need, and lack of alternate suitable accommodations in eviction cases under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
The burden of proof lies on the landlord to establish a genuine and bona fide requirement for possession of the premises, and the tenant must prima facie make out a case that disentitles the landlord....
The court held that the landlord's demonstrated bona fide need for the property justified the eviction despite tenant claims of hardship.
The judgment establishes the principles of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship in the context of eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
The court concluded that a landlord does not need formal attornment to establish a tenant's obligation after property transfer, emphasizing the need must be bona fide.
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
