Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In October 2004, petitioners came to know that respondent no.1 was carrying out illegal structural changes in the tenanted shop. Petitioner no.1 went to inspect the shop and found that major structural changes were being made without their permission. Petitioner no.1 told respondent no.1 to stop doing the same upon which respondent no.1 got the work stopped and assured that he would not make any structural changes in the tenanted shop and handover the same to petitioners on or before 31.03.2005. But he did not keep his words and made illegal structural changes in the tenanted shop and did not handover the same to petitioners. Petitioners sent legal notice dated 04.04.2005 to statutory tenant Smt. Gian Devi for paying arrears of rent since April 1995 and for vacating the tenanted premises. Smt. Gian Devi neither tendered nor paid the arrears of rent nor she vacated the tenanted premises. She sent a false reply dated 04.07.2005 wherein it has been alleged that she had no concern with the tenanted shop and only respondent no.1 is the sole proprietor and controlling the same. Rejoinder dated 08.07.2005 to the said reply was sent to Smt. Gian Devi.

Supreme Court in Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16 held that 'an alternative accommodation', to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be 'reasonably suitable', obviously in comparision with the accommodation whereform the landlord is seeking eviction. It was further held that the availability of another accommodation suitable and convenient in all respects as the accommodation from which the landlord is seeking eviction may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord, if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. It was yet further held that the bonafides of the need of the landlord for the premises or additional premises have to be determined by the Court by applying objective standards and once the Court is satisfied of such bonafide, then in the matter of choosing out of more accommodation than one available to the landlord, his subjective choice shall be respected by the Court. Again, in Uday Shankar Upadhyay v. Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503, it was held that it is not for the Courts to say that the landlord should shift to the first floor or any higher floor as it is well known that shops and businesses are usually conducted on the ground floor, because the customers can reach there easily. It was reiterated that the Court cannot dictate to the landlord which floor he should use for his business and that is for the landlord himself to decide. The plea of the landlord of requirement is not to be judged by considering the possibility by which the tenant may be allowed to continue in the premises. The requirement is to be judged on the basis of the property as it stands and not by commanding the landlord to make structural changes therein, to somehow or the other accommodate the tenant.