Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh vs Sudarshan Kumar on 27 January, 2021
In the case of Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh Vs.
Sudarshan Kumar reported in (2021) 15 SCC 75, the Apex
Court has held that "adequacy or otherwise of the space
available with the landlord for the business in mind is not for
the tenant to dictate." The plaintiff has been able to prove that
the defendants are defaulter in payment of rent of the suit
premises and the plaintiff is in reasonable and bonafide need of
the suit premises. Hence, the learned courts below are quite
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2025(8) dt.31-10-2025
16/16
justified in arriving at the finding with regard to default as well
as bonafide requirement.
Shamim Ara Naz And Anr. vs Mohammad Quamruddin on 18 February, 1997
16. Reliance has been placed in the case of Shamim
Ara Naz & Anr. Vs. Mohammad Quamruddin, reported in
1997 (1) PLJR 526 wherein this court has held that "When the
learned court below has come to a prima facie finding that the
plaintiff established his ownership over the suit premises then
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2025(8) dt.31-10-2025
15/16
the application ought not to have been rejected on the ground
that there was no evidence of payment of rent by the defendant
to the plaintiff or their vendor". The defendants assertion that
grandfather, namely, Kaptan Prasad entered in the suit premises
forcefully and ousted Jugal Prasad and since then they are
residing for more than 12 years which confers title due to
adverse possession. The claim of adverse possession has not
been established by any cogent evidence nor the same is
required to be looked into in the Eviction Suit. When the tenant
is in possession of the suit premises, no question of adverse
possession arise. Both the courts below have held that the
plaintiff has bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit
premises for personal necessity as his sons required the suit
premises to establish hotel business.
1