Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.58 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
In Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan
(1996)5SCC353 it was held that the landlord is the best Judge
of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate the
landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The
bona fide personal need is a question of fact and should not
be normally interfered with. The High Court noted that when
the Prescribed Authority passed the order son of the
respondent-landlady was 20 years old and the shop was
sought to be released for the purpose of settling him in
business. More than 20 years have elapsed and the son has
become more than 40 years of age and she has not been able
to establish him as she has still to get the possession of the
shop and the litigation of the dispute is still subsisting. The
licence for repairing fire arms can only be obtained when
there is a vacant shop available and in the absence of any
vacant shop, licence cannot be obtained by him. Therefore,
the High Court came to the conclusion concurring with that of
the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority that the
need of the landlady is bona fide and genuine. Considering
the factual findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority,
Appellate Authority and analysed by the High Court, there is
no scope for any interference in this appeal which is
accordingly dismissed. However, considering the period for
which the premises in question are in the occupation of the
appellant time is granted till 31st December, 2007 to vacate
the premises subject to filing of an undertaking before the
Prescribed Authority within a period of 2 weeks to deliver the
vacant possession on or before the stipulated date. There will
be no order as to costs."
Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors on 28 March, 2007
13. This Court also referred to its judgment in Rishi
Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan: (2007) 4 SCC 465 where it has
particularly taken note of the fact that the landlady had no
34
other shop where she can establish her son who is married
and unemployed and there was nothing on record to indicate
that the business of the father was huge or flourishing. This
Court clarified that the length of the period of tenancy as
provided under clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the
said Rules is only one of the factors to be taken into account
in context with other facts and circumstances of the case and
cannot be a sole criterion or deciding factor to order or not the
eviction. This Court held that in the circumstances of the case
the balance tilted in favour of the unemployed son of the
landlady whose need is certainly bona fide. After quoting the
above judgment in Ganga Devi this Court gave six months
time to the landlady to handover the premises to the landlord
in the interest of justice.
Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery And Co on 7 January, 2000
34. It had dealt with regard to the plea of evidence relating to
the conclusion to be drawn for the bonafide need of the landlord,
it was observed, that even for a moment, if it is taken, that the
landlord has got other available vacant shops, though not proved
25
by evidence on records in the instant case, but still it has been
consistently held, that it's the landlord who is the best judge to
assess his need and suitability, as to which part of the tenement
sought to be released, would best serve the bonafide requirement
of the landlord and nature of work in which the landlord wants to
put to use, and hence merely because of the fact though not
established in the instant case, the alleged theory of availability
of other shops, which are said to be in vacant state cannot itself
be taken as a ground to dilute or mitigate the bonafide
requirement of the landlord, which has yet again had been
recorded on the basis of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, as reported in AIR 2000 SC 534, Ragavendra
Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinary and Co., wherein too it has
been reiterated that it is exclusively the choice of the landlord to
choose the place for his business which would be more suitable
to him and in that regard he has got a complete freedom in the
matter and it has been observed, that the need of the landlord is to
be seen from the date of the application and hence the tenant
cannot in an advisory capacity enjoy a privilege to take a defence,
that the need of the landlord is not bonafide merely because of
the fact that there was other available shops, as it has been
pleaded in the instant case, though it was not a fact which was
ever attempted to be established by any evidence. Para 10 of the
said judgment is extracted hereunder:-
Central Tobacoo Co., Bangalore vs Chandra Prakash on 23 April, 1969
"20. Let us now probe into the extent of the hardship that
may be caused to one party or the other, in case a decree for
eviction is passed or is refused. It seems to us that in deciding
this aspect of the matter each party has to prove its relative
advantages or disadvantages and the entire Onus cannot be
thrown on the plaintiffs to prove that lesser disadvantages will
be suffered by the defendants and that they were remediable.
This matter was considered by this Court in an unreported
decision in the case of M/s Central Tobacco Co. v. Chandra
Prakash(l) where this Court observed as follows:-
Sushila ] vs Iind Addl.District Judge, Banda & Ors on 17 December, 2002
"18. The parameters relating to Rule 16 of the Rules have
been dealt with by this Court in Sushila v. IInd Addl. District
Judge, Banda and Ors. AIR2003SC780 . In the said judgment
it was inter-alia noted as follows;
Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors on 6 October, 1978
18. Not even that, while deciding the issue of hardship in that
case too, it has been observed that landlord has once he
establishes that he has a genuine requirement to possess the
15
accommodation necessary for his personal requirement being the
owner of the house, he cannot be denied and can be compelled to
live below the poverty line merely to enable the respondent to
carry out his business at the cost of the landlord's own interest of
occupying and utilising his premises for his own requirement.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment has observed
that while deciding extent of hardship that may be caused to one
party or the other, in case a decree for eviction is passed or
refused, each party has to establish its relative advantage and
disadvantages and the entire onus to establish the same cannot be
shifted or thrown upon the plaintiff landlord to prove the lesser
disadvantages will be suffered by the tenant i.e. what has been
observed in para 20 of the said judgment, which is extracted
hereunder:-
Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001
In Gaya Prasad
v. Pradeep Shrivastava [2001]1SCR923 it was held that the
need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application
for release.
Kishinchand Murjimal And Ors. vs Bal Kalavati And Ors. on 14 March, 1972
14. Although, the provisions of the rent laws fall to be within
the ambit of list 2 of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, as
contained in its Entry 18, but, invariably, all the state laws
relating to the rent control or governing the interse relationship of
landlord and tenant are based upon the wider principles of the
reasonableness of the need, which has been expressed by the
landlord /respondent in the release application in order to justify
the vacation of the tenement to meet his personal requirement of
the accommodation, which is under the tenancy and in relation
thereto, a reference may be had to a judgment as reported in AIR
1973 Bombay 46, Kishinchand Murjimal and others Vs. Bai
Kalavati and others. Though, the said matter was arising out of
the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act,
1947, but, principally, in its para 15, it had dealt with as to upto
9
what extent the reasonableness of requirement of the landlord has
to be normally appreciated by the Courts on consideration of an
evidence, which has been placed on record and upto what extent
the same could be interfered by the writ Courts in exercise of its
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On a
composite reading, the observations made in paras 9, 15, 16 and
17 of the said judgment becomes relevant, which deals with the
aforesaid proposition pertaining to the reasonableness of the
accommodation and the demand of the landlord and the tenant,
which has to be comparatively studied depending upon the
respective hardship, which is likely to be caused if the release
application is allowed. The Bombay High Court, in the said
judgment had observed that the interference in a concurrent
findings pertaining to the question of balance of hardship of
primarily the question of the reasonableness of requirement of the
landlord has had to be interfered extremely in a very rare
circumstances where there is a non application of mind to the
circumstances of the case which is not prevalent in the present
writ petition as it has been argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner/tenant. Para 9, 15, 16 & 17 of the said judgment are
extracted hereunder:-