Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.36 seconds)Suresh Kumar Kohli vs Rakesh Jain on 19 April, 2018
and not M/s Baisiwala Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Further, the contention of the
respondent that the petition is bad on account of nonjoinder of other legal
heirs of Sh. R.S. Baisiwala alongwith the respondent no.2 is not tenable as in
case titled as Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain & Anr., 2018 SCC
OnLine SC 424 it was held that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs
inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenant in
occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to
implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying
the property, or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of
those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a
case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant
and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is
sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition
against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and
all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint
tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs.
Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail.
Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors vs Naveen Maheshwari on 18 November, 2009
12. The contention of the respondent no.2 that the petitioner is in
possession of two shops on the first floor of the suit property marked as
E77745/16 Page 7/12
MarkC & MarkD and two godowns marked as MarkE & MarkF is not
tenable as as per the settlement, it is apparent that the petitioner was given
only the ground floor and one room on the first floor of the property in
question and nothing else. Hence, it is to be noted that there is only one
room available with the petitioner at the first floor. Further, room on the
first floor is not having same commercial value as room on the ground floor.
Reliance placed upon judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Udai Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Naveen Maheshwari, (2010) 1 SCC 503 and
Dhanna Lal Vs. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16 that it is in common
knowledge that commercial premises have different value depending upon
the location and the floor at which they are situated and shops situated at an
inconvenient location do not attract customers and no lucrative business can
be carried on therefrom as from a shop located strategically.
Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai And Ors on 8 July, 2002
12. The contention of the respondent no.2 that the petitioner is in
possession of two shops on the first floor of the suit property marked as
E77745/16 Page 7/12
MarkC & MarkD and two godowns marked as MarkE & MarkF is not
tenable as as per the settlement, it is apparent that the petitioner was given
only the ground floor and one room on the first floor of the property in
question and nothing else. Hence, it is to be noted that there is only one
room available with the petitioner at the first floor. Further, room on the
first floor is not having same commercial value as room on the ground floor.
Reliance placed upon judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Udai Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Naveen Maheshwari, (2010) 1 SCC 503 and
Dhanna Lal Vs. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16 that it is in common
knowledge that commercial premises have different value depending upon
the location and the floor at which they are situated and shops situated at an
inconvenient location do not attract customers and no lucrative business can
be carried on therefrom as from a shop located strategically.
Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery And Co on 7 January, 2000
Further, it is
settled law that the landlord is master of his choice and tenant or the court
cannot compel a landlord to choose a particular place against his choice as in
"Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Company", AIR 2000
SC 534, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is settled position
of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or
business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter (reliance
placed upon "Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353).
M/S. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & ... vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) By ... on 5 January, 2004
9. The contention of the respondent no.2 that the petition is bad on
account of nonjoinder of other owners namely Sh. Satish Chander and Sh.
Murari Lal is not tenable as from the settlement deed it is apparent that the
suit premises falls into the share of the petitioner. Even otherwise, it is
admitted position of law that one cosharer/ coowner can file eviction
petition against the tenants, reliance being placed upon the judgment in case
titled as M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. Vs. Bhagabandel
Agarwalla (dead) by LRs & Ors., AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1321 decided
by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that one of the coowners
can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the
coowners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co
owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf
in his own right and as an agent of the other coowners. The consent of
other coowners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co
owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed inspite
of their disagreement. In the present case nothing could be brought on
record to suggest that other coowners have any objection to filing of the
present petition.
Baldev Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini on 5 October, 2005
(i) In Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash, 167 (2010) DLT 80 =
2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252, observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, VIII (2005) 12 SCC 778, have been
quoted as under :
"it was held that the legislative intent is of expeditious disposal of
the application for ejectment of tenant filed on the ground of requirement by
the landlord of the premises for his own occupation; a special category of
landlords requiring the premises for their own use has been created; if there
is any breach by the landlord, the tenant is given a right of restoration of
E77745/16 Page 10/12
possession; the landlord who evicts a tenant on the ground of own
requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the premises or disposing
of the same but also required to use the same for his own residence only. It
was held that these restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong
presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine; the conditions and
restrictions imposed on the landlord make it virtually improbable for the
landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant, unless his need is
bonafide no unscrupulous landlord in all probability, under this section,
would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the
onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that this inbuilt
protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the landlord
would approach the Court his requirements shall be presumed to be genuine
and bonafide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to
prove that the requirement is not genuine. The tenant is required to give all
the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence if
available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be
in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide
requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would
not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that
his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine."
Dattatraya Laxman Kamble vs Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde & Anr on 28 April, 1999
(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs.
Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde, (1999) 4 SCC 1 held that the phrase
"reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord" is not to be tested on par
with "dire need" of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need.
Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs vs Chaganlal Sundarji And Co on 13 October, 1999
Similarly, in Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., (1999)
8 SCC 1 it was held that the word "reasonable" connotes that the
E77745/16 Page 11/12
requirement or the need is not fanciful or unreasonable but need not also be a
"compelling" or "absolute" or "dire necessity". A reasonable and bonafide
requirement was held to be something in between a mere desire or wish on
the one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity on the other
hand.