Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Judgment dt: 25/9/2012 who have appeared throughout the trial of the present eviction suit, the lengthy litigation channels, creepy & lethargic system and hiccups of interlocutory applications and their disposals taking its own toll of lengthening the arrival time of fruits of litigation for the landlord, who sought eviction for his own personal and bonafide need to set up his own cloth business in the present suit shop.

3. One is reminded of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gaya Prasad vs.Pradeep Srivastava - (2001) 2 SCC 604, wherein, the Supreme Court lamented over the excessively long time period taken in such matters and expressing its anguish observed that many many events are bound to take place for landlord or for his family members during the pendency of such litigation and thereby such events cannot be held to obliterate his bonafide need and, therefore, the crucial date for deciding the bonafide need shall be the date of filing of the suit & the Apex Court upheld the eviction decree.

Judgment dt: 25/9/2012 of bonafide need by the landlord cannot be a ground of eviction of tenant, unless the Court arrives at an objective satisfaction that such bonafide need is really genuine and reasonable and the landlord does not have any alternative accommodation in his possession to satisfy such claimed need. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant- tenant, therefore, vehemently submitted that the substantial questions of law do arise in the present second appeal of tenant and it deserves to be admitted.

Judgment dt: 25/9/2012 matter was set down for admission, such an application is filed on vague and bald submissions, and is insisted to be argued first by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, which is not justified. He submitted that the stay granted in favour of defendant-tenant deserves to be vacated, if the appeal itself is not argued for admission first. 13 Mr. Saraswat further submitted that even before the learned court below, the defendant- appellant had already raised the defence that there was no bonafide need of the plaintiff-landlord as he was doing his own business in the name and style of M/s Shrinath Iron & Brass factory, and after so many years, now the defendant-tenant wants to amend the written statement at this highly belated stage with vague averments that since a bank account exists as per his knowledge on 24.08.2012, the written statement is required to be amended so that the matter may be remanded again for a fresh trial on this issue. He further submitted that it is well settled legal position as per Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava reported in (2001) 2 SCC 604 and this Court's decision in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Mst. Shevi Bai, (CSA No.157/2005, decided 22.01.2009) that the bonafide need on the date of filing of the suit, which in the S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO. 197/2009 Gopal Krishna & ors. vs.Kishan lal & Anr.

Judgment dt: 25/9/2012 Court. In our view, none of the reasons leads to the inference that Bhikchand did not intend to start family Kirana business, so relief cannot be denied to the landlady to recover the suit premises for personal requirement of Bhikchand to establish Kirana business independently."

44. Similarly, in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. - (2005) 8 SCC 252, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the eviction is sought for bonafide requirement of landlord, the relevant date on which the said need has to be adjudged is the date of filing the suit and subsequent events taking place during the period of litigation like engaging in other activity or business for which premises in question is required do not upset such bonafide need unless such subsequent events are of such a nature & dimension as to completely eclipse such need and make it lose significance altogether and the process of litigation cannot be made the basis for denying the landlord relief when litigation at last reaches the final stage.