Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Bhagwandas Maganlal vs Kaikhushru Adarji Antia on 21 September, 1920
In support of his argument, Mr. Kotwal relied on Bhagwandas v. Kaikhushru (1920) 23 Bom. L.R. 287, in which the facts were as follows:-The landlord Bhagwandas gave a notice to his tenant in December 1917 to vacate the shop in possession of the tenant. As the notice was not complied with, the landlord filed a suit to eject the tenant on the ground that the shop was required by him since the Municipality had ordered a set-back of the house. The suit ended in a decree in favour of the landlord and the tenant was ordered to give up possession of the shop on or before July 31, 1918. In the meantime, on April 10, 1918, the Bombay Rent Act II of 1918 was placed on the statute-book. On the strength of this Rent Act, the tenant applied for suspension of the decree and he secured the suspension for a period of ten months. When that period expired, the landlord applied to execute the decree, but the trial Judge ordered the execution of the decree to be stayed sine, die, as it appeared to him that the plea on which the landlord had sought to eject the tenant was not substantiated, and he considered that the plea of the landlord that he wanted the premises for his own use was belated. The landlord applied to this Court in revision, and it was held that the only question which the Court had to consider in such a case was whether at the time the landlord sought to eject a tenant he reasonably required the premises for his own use. As there was no finding on the point, the case was sant down to the trial Court to decide on the evidence whother the landlord could satisfy the Court that he reasonably required
the suit premises for his own use, "at the present moment." It may be mentioned that under Section 9(2) of the Bombay Rent Act II of 1918, a landlord had a right to recover possession of any premises in occupation of a tenant if he reasonably and bona fide required them for his own occupation, a provision similar to the provision in Section 13(1)(g) of the present Act; and this-Court held that in such a case the landlord had to satisfy the Court that he reasonably required the premises for his own use at the time that he sought to eject the tenant.
Shantaram Keshav vs Prabhakar Balwant And Anr. on 22 August, 1955
In Shantaram Keshav v. Prabhakar Balwant . Mr. Justice Bavdekar held that the word "decree" in Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act means the decree for eviction which is passed by the trial Court and, therefore, the time at which the availability of the accommodation either to the landlord or tenant, which has to be taken into consideration under Section 13(2) of the Act, is the time when the trial Court is about to pass the decree for eviction. This principle must equally apply under Section 13(I)(g), of the Bombay Rent Act. In order that a landlord should become entitled to recover possession of any premises on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g), the Court has to be satisfied that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by him for occupation by himself. When the landlord gives notice seeking to terminate the tenancy of the tenant on that ground and flies a suit for possession, it is not only essential for him to show that at the date when he gave notice he reasonably and bona fide required the premises for his own occupation, but that his need continued even pending the hearing of the suit. The trial Court's satisfaction on this point must relate to the period of the hearing of the suit itself and the passing of the decree, and cannot be confined to the date of the notice.
1