Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)Deep Chandra Jeneja vs Lajwanti Kathuria (Dead) By Lrs on 10 July, 2008
10. There is no doubt that the Supreme Court had in "Deep Chandra
Juneja vs. Lajwanti Kathuria", (2008) VIII SCC 497, which judgment
has been relied upon by the learned trial Court, held that the landlord is
the best judge of his requirement and the Courts have no concern to
dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live but in
my view this judgment had no application for deciding the plea taken by
the petitioners in the leave to defend application as to the effect of
respondent - landlord letting out the ground floor portion to a new tenant
before the filing of the eviction petition against the petitioners and it was
not held in that case by the Supreme Court that a landlord has an
unfettered right to claim eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide
requirement even when there is some other alternative accommodation
available with him, while in the two judgments referred to by me are
squarely dealing with this point only.
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
8. Even otherwise the view of the learned Additional Rent Controller
that a landlord has a right to decide as to which of the premises available
to him is to be occupied cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in "Shiv Sarup Gupta versus Dr. Mahesh Chand
Gupta", (1999)6 SCC 222 wherein it has been held that if landlord wants
to get a property vacated from a tenant despite his having in possession
another property then the Court can justifiably require the landlord to
justify his decision as to why he wants to do his business only from the
property from which the tenant is sought to be evicted and not from the
other property already available with him. This is what the Court had
observed in para 14 of this judgment:
M.M. Quasim vs Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors on 7 April, 1981
In "M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Others,
(1981)3SCC36" also the Supreme Court had taken the same view. The
relevant observations of the Supreme Court in para no. 19 of its judgment
are reproduced below:
Section 14 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1