Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.44 seconds)Dattatraya Laxman Kamble vs Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde & Anr on 28 April, 1999
39] In Dattatraya L. Kamble (supra), the Supreme Court has held
that the expression "reasonably and bona fide requirement by the
landlord" indicates that the requirements must be really genuine
from any reasonable standards. However, the genuineness of the
requirement is not to be tested on a par with the dire need of a
landlord because the latter is a much greater need.
Nidhi vs Ram Kripal Sharma (D) Thr. Lrs on 7 February, 2017
In any case, Mr. Gokhale
submits that subsequent developments must be of such nature as
eclipse the bona fide and reasonable need of the landlord. He
submits that in the course of a litigation which runs over decades
some events are bound to take place. But, he submits that it is not
the law that cognizance is required to take of all such events so as
to deprive the landlord, for no fault on his part of the fruits of the
decree of eviction already made by the trial Court on legal and
cogent grounds. Mr. Gokhale placed reliance on the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nidhi vs. Ram Kripal
Sharma (Dead) through Legal Representatives4 and Gaya
Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava5.
Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001
48] The civil application, once again makes reference to sale of
open plot to Indian Oil Company. For reasons, indicated earlier, this
is an irrelevant circumstance insofar as the issue of reasonable and
bona fide requirement of the suit premises is concerned. There is,
31/34
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 01:24:31 :::
skc/dss JUDGMENT-WP-3347-95
accordingly, no case made out to upset the decree made by the
Trial Court on the grounds of so called subsequent developments
referred to in Civil Application No. 3107 of 2010.
49] In Gaya Prasad (supra), the Supreme Court has held that
subsequent developments during pendency of eviction petition
occurring because of slowness of process of litigation itself cannot
be made use by the tenants for denying landlord reliefs, when the
litigation at last reaches the final stages. Further, the Supreme
Court has held that subsequent events should be of such nature
and dimension as to completely eclipse such need and make it
loose significance altogether. The developments in lives of landlord
and his family, cannot be expected to come to a standstill during
pendency of eviction petition, especially in view of tardiness and
delays plaguing the legal system. Bona fides of the requirement
have to be tested in relation to the date on which the eviction was
applied for. Where premises were required for starting a son's
business, the fact that during the years that the matter is pending,
the son gets a job or moves out of town, cannot be used against the
landlord. For these reasons also, there is no question of depriving
the landlords reliefs on the grounds of the alleged subsequent
developments referred to in Civil Application No. 3107 of 2010.
Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996
In Meenal Kshirsagar (supra), the
Supreme Court in no uncertain terms, has held that the landlord is
the best judge of his requirement. If the landlord desires to
25/34
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 01:24:31 :::
skc/dss JUDGMENT-WP-3347-95
beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property
occupied by him as a tenant or on any other basis is either insecure
or inconvenient, it is not for the Courts to dictate to him to continue
to occupy such premises. It is for the landlord to decide how and in
what manner he should live and hie is the best judge of his
requirement.
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986
must be made on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide
requirement of the landlords, non user and unauthorised subletting.
Mr. Gokhale does not press any other grounds of eviction. He relies
upon certain decisions including, the decision in the case of Savita
Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union & Anr. 6
and Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram 7 to
submit that findings if vitiated by perversity can always be
interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He submits that in this
case the findings recorded by the appeal Court are vitiated by
perversity as well as misdirection of law. He submits that the
impugned judgment and order dated 22 nd March 1995 made by the
appeal Court warrants interference and may be set aside.
16] Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar, learned counsel for the tenants
submits that findings of record recorded by the appeal Court are
backed by the material on record. There is absolutely no perversity
in the record of such findings of fact. He submits that this Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may
not re-assess or re-evaluate the material on record, since, this
6 (1999) 2 SCC 143
7 (1986) 4 SCC 447
11/34
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 01:24:31 :::
skc/dss JUDGMENT-WP-3347-95
Court, does not, under Article 227 of the Constitution exercise
appellate jurisdiction. He submits that the appeal Court, normally, is
the final Court in so far as findings of fact are concerned. He
submits that in this case there is overwhelming evidence which
establishes that the need of the landlords was neither reasonable
nor bona fide. He submits that there is ample material on record
which demonstrates that the landlords have several residential as
well as commercial premises. He submits that the landlords have,
during the pendency of the proceedings for eviction , transferred
several residential as well as commercial premises and in these
circumstances it can never be said any ground for eviction as
contemplated by the Rent Control legislation was made out. He
submits that there is admission on the part of the landlords that
apart from the suit premises, the tenants have no other premises
from which to undertake their business. In these circumstances, he
submits that the issue of comparative hardship was quite rightly
decided in favour of the tenants by the appeal Court. There is
neither any error of jurisdiction nor any perversity in this regard.
17] Mr. Dhakephalkar submits that the subsequent developments
referred to in Civil Application No. 3107 of 2010, in any case,
establish that the need of the landlords is neither surviving nor was
the same ever reasonable or bona fide. He submits that during the
12/34
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 01:24:31 :::
skc/dss JUDGMENT-WP-3347-95
pendency of the proceedings, the landlords have acquired several
other premises, which they have chosen to dispose of. He submits
that all this militates against both the bona fides as well as the
reasonability of the requirement portrayed by the landlords.
Om Prakash Gupta vs Ranbir B. Goyal on 18 January, 2002
Even in Om Prakash Gupta (supra),
upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Dhakephalkar, the
Supreme Court has categorically held that the person wishing Court
to take notice of subsequent events, must make out a case
justifying such notice being taken. Further, the Supreme Court has
held that subsequent events can be taken cognizance of only if the
Court's attention is invited towards them according to established
rules of procedure so that the prerequisites of affording the
opposite party an opportunity of meeting the new case and of
determining the real questions in controversy are fulfilled. Where,
the appellant-defendant before the Supreme Court only filed an
29/34
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 01:24:31 :::
skc/dss JUDGMENT-WP-3347-95
affidavit stating certain facts and did not seek to amend the the
pleadings, nor made a prayer regarding cognizance of subsequent
events, nor prayed for appropriate relief, the Court would not be
justified in taking into consideration the facts concerned.
45] Apart from the procedural obstacles, if Civil Application No.
3107 of 2010 is perused, then, it can hardly be said that
developments referred to therein are really in the nature of
subsequent developments, which are relevant for deciding the issue
of reasonable and bona fide requirement or the issue of
comparative hardship. The tenant has made reference to the age of
landlord Kirloskar and the fact that he is bed ridden for 4 to 5 years
and he is suffering from Kidney or other ailments. On this basis,
Mr.Dhakephalkar urged that it is impossible for the landlord to
undertake the proposed business in this state of his health. The
submission deserves rejection. On account of litigative process,
such subsequent developments are inevitable. In this case, the
requirement pleaded was not merely of the landlord himself, but
also of his two sons.
Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery And Co on 7 January, 2000
40] In Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co.12,
the Supreme Court reiterated that the landlord is the best judge of
12 (2000) 1 SCC 679
27/34
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 01:24:31 :::
skc/dss JUDGMENT-WP-3347-95
his own requirement for residential or business purposes and has
complete freedom in the matter. In this case, the landlord had
admitted that he owns several other shops and houses, but had
stated that they were not vacant and also that the suit premises
were suitable for proposed business. In such circumstances, the
Supreme Court allowed the landlord's eviction petition on the
grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement.
41] The reasoning of the Appeal Court is contrary to the settled
position of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decisions. The Appeal Court has clearly misdirected itself in law in
ignoring the relevant and vital material on record and further, failing
to advert to settled position in law in the matters of evaluation of
reasonable and bona fide requirement.
M/S Savita Chemicals (Pvt) Ltd vs Dyes & Chemical Workers Union & Anr on 11 December, 1998
must be made on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide
requirement of the landlords, non user and unauthorised subletting.
Mr. Gokhale does not press any other grounds of eviction. He relies
upon certain decisions including, the decision in the case of Savita
Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union & Anr. 6
and Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram 7 to
submit that findings if vitiated by perversity can always be
interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He submits that in this
case the findings recorded by the appeal Court are vitiated by
perversity as well as misdirection of law. He submits that the
impugned judgment and order dated 22 nd March 1995 made by the
appeal Court warrants interference and may be set aside.
16] Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar, learned counsel for the tenants
submits that findings of record recorded by the appeal Court are
backed by the material on record. There is absolutely no perversity
in the record of such findings of fact. He submits that this Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may
not re-assess or re-evaluate the material on record, since, this
6 (1999) 2 SCC 143
7 (1986) 4 SCC 447
11/34
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 01:24:31 :::
skc/dss JUDGMENT-WP-3347-95
Court, does not, under Article 227 of the Constitution exercise
appellate jurisdiction. He submits that the appeal Court, normally, is
the final Court in so far as findings of fact are concerned. He
submits that in this case there is overwhelming evidence which
establishes that the need of the landlords was neither reasonable
nor bona fide. He submits that there is ample material on record
which demonstrates that the landlords have several residential as
well as commercial premises. He submits that the landlords have,
during the pendency of the proceedings for eviction , transferred
several residential as well as commercial premises and in these
circumstances it can never be said any ground for eviction as
contemplated by the Rent Control legislation was made out. He
submits that there is admission on the part of the landlords that
apart from the suit premises, the tenants have no other premises
from which to undertake their business. In these circumstances, he
submits that the issue of comparative hardship was quite rightly
decided in favour of the tenants by the appeal Court. There is
neither any error of jurisdiction nor any perversity in this regard.
17] Mr. Dhakephalkar submits that the subsequent developments
referred to in Civil Application No. 3107 of 2010, in any case,
establish that the need of the landlords is neither surviving nor was
the same ever reasonable or bona fide. He submits that during the
12/34
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 01:24:31 :::
skc/dss JUDGMENT-WP-3347-95
pendency of the proceedings, the landlords have acquired several
other premises, which they have chosen to dispose of. He submits
that all this militates against both the bona fides as well as the
reasonability of the requirement portrayed by the landlords.
Shrirang Dharmaraj Kale vs Najmunissa A. Rahimbee Shaikh And Ors. on 12 September, 2002
circumstances of the said case, merely remanded the matter to the
Appellate Court for reconsideration. The direction was also issued
to consider the application for adducing additional evidence in
accordance with law and on its own merits. This decision can hardly
be of any assistance to the tenant in the fact situation of the present
case. Shrirang Kale (supra), in fact lays down that in absence of
prayer for amendment of the pleadings and without such
amendment subsequent events cannot even be considered.
44] In this case, except for filing Civil Application No. 3107 of
2010 and setting out therein certain alleged subsequent
developments, the tenants have not even applied for any
amendment to the pleadings.