Kerala High Court: Imposition of Unaffordable Cost is Akin to Denial of Relief  ||  SC: People Can’t be Asked to Prove Citizenship on Mere Suspicion Without Sharing Material  ||  Bombay High Court: State Government’s Decision to Hike Lease Rentals Not Arbitrary  ||  Bom. HC: State Obligated to Protect Liberty of Foreigners Coming to the Country  ||  Ker. HC: State Govt. to Form SOP for Collection of DNA Samples of Children Surrendered For Adoption  ||  SC: Court Can’t Take Cogni. of Offence Committed by Public Servant Without Following S. 19 of PC Act  ||  Karnataka HC: Illegal to Impose Condition of Furnishing Bank Guarantee While Granting Bail  ||  Allahabad High Court Makes History by Delivering Judgement in Three Languages  ||  Supreme Court: Directions Issued to States/UTs for Prevention of Overcrowding of Prisons  ||  SC: Caution Must be Exercised by Trial Court in Accepting Dock Identification of Accused Without TIP    

Mangalserry Vs. Sukumar - (High Court of Bombay) (26 Jul 2023)

Courts cannot ordinarily doubt the bonafide need of landlord nor the Courts can dictate to landlord as to how the premise owned by him should be used



The judgment and decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide need passed by the Small Causes Court and confirmed by District Judge vide judgment and decree, against the petitioners/tenants, is under challenge in present writ petition.

Specific pleadings were made by the original Plaintiff about the bonafide need to the effect that the original Plaintiff required the premises in question reasonably and bonafide for his own occupation and for the occupation of the persons namely his family members for whose benefit also, the property was built. Thus, there are sufficient pleadings as regards bonafide need of the original plaintiff and all his family members, who are respondents as legal heirs of him.

As far as settlement is concerned, it has come on record that the petitioners have failed to act upon the terms and conditions of the settlement. Even this Court repeatedly granted opportunity to the Petitioners in that regard, however, the Petitioners failed to avail such opportunity. In the said backdrop, subsequently change of decision by the landlords not to sell the property does not amount to cessation of a need of the landlords.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Balwant P. Doshi vs. ShantabanDhirajlal Shah and Anr., has held that the Courts cannot ordinarily doubt the bonafide need of the landlord nor the Courts can dictate to the landlord as to how the premise owned by him should be used. It is sufficient for the landlord to express his desire to occupy the premises owned by him. It is not necessary for the landlord to establish the dire necessity but it is enough to show that some need exists.

This Court has further held that the landlords who are staying in the rented premises desire to stay in their own accommodation, then the Court, as a rule should not refuse the decree.Further, after examining the oral as well as documentary evidence, it sufficiently establishes that, both the Courts below have rightly held on the point of comparative hardship in favour of the landlords. In the circumstance, there is no error committed by both the Courts below in decreeing the suit for eviction. Petition dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved