Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)
Chotumal Bahiramal Sindho vs Since Deceased on 6 March, 2009 cites

Suhasini Atmaram Parab And Ors. vs B.H. Khatu And Ors. on 4 September, 2002

one Plea taken in the Written of general denial and assertion of the Statement fact that there is acute shortage of business premises in Nasik city. Indeed, the tenant has stated that securing alternative accommodation elsewhere would be difficult and for which the Defendant and his family members would suffer greater hardship. In the evidence, the tenant has merely stated that besides the suit premises, he does not have any other premises of his ownership or on rent. There is no case made out in the examination-in-chief, not even remote statement that it would be impossible to get another premises in the same locality. During cross-examination, offer was given to the tenant, whether he would like to shift in the shop available with the landlord towards Tanksal lane in the suit ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:33 ::: 31 building, to which he flatly refused. It is well established position that if the tenant fails to plead and prove the fact that it is impossible to get another alternative accommodation in the same locality, the issue of comparative hardship should necessarily be answered against the tenant, as has been observed in the decision reported in 2003(1) BCR 733 Suhasini A. Parab & Ors. Vs. B.H.Khatu & Ors.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1