Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)G. C. Kapoor vs Nand Kumar Bhasin & Ors on 20 November, 2001
A priori, the event of Narkhedkar handing over possession of two rooms to the landlords is very pertinent, for by that the need which was pressed into service by the landlords at the time of institution of the suit on 20-10-1980, was satisfied in the year 1981. As observed earlier, even the present suit premises consists of two rooms and a verandah. If that be so, then surely, there would be no question of answering the issue of reasonable and bona fide requirement in favour of the landlords. The appellate Court although adverted to the fact of induction of Narkhedkar and subsequent vacating of the premises by Narkhedkar and delivery of possession to the landlords, has glossed over the crucial tests atleast relating to the theory of eclipsing of the requirement which ought to have been considered and applied to the fact situation of the present case, Mr. Kumbhakoni for the tenants has rightly relied on the decision of the Apex Court in G. C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin and Ors. to contend that bona fide requirement means that requirement must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive and is not a mere wish or desire. No doubt it was contended on behalf of landlords that the conclusion of the Appellate Court ought not to be faulted because during the pendency of the proceedings the requirement of the landlords has increased and in that context the need of the landlords would be reasonable and bona fide. However, it is not possible to countenance this stand. Firstly, there is no corresponding amendment of the pleadings in this regard. Moreover, it is settled law that the parties will have to be relegated to the date of institution of the suit and as in this case the landlords had let out two rooms in their possession to the said Narkhedkar, it is unfathomable that there would be any cause of action available to the landlords to institute the present suit on the ground of reasonable and bona fide need. Regarding the landlords plea of subsequent events. I shall deal with that further a little later. Having analysed the admitted facts on record in the above perspective, I have no hesitation in taking the view that there would be no occasion to answer the issue of reasonable and bona fide requirement in favour of the landlords.
1