9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Eviction order based on landlord's bonafide requirement under u/s 21 of the Act without serving notice as per proviso. Summary: The appellant, a tenant of a shop, faced eviction based on the landlord's bonafide requirement under Section 21 of the Act without receiving the required notice as per the proviso. The appellant contended that the proceedings were not maintainable under the Act due to lack of notice. The facts revealed a history of the shop's ownership and tenancy, leading to the current situation where the respondent-landlord sought eviction. The Prescribed Authority, Appellate Court, and High Court upheld the eviction order, emphasizing the landlord's bonafide need for the shop. The High Court clarified the interpretation of the proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, stating that a six-month notice is not mandatory after three years have passed since the purchase of a building. The Court highlighted the importance of harmonious construction and the intention behind statutory provisions. It emphasized the need to balance the rights of landlords and tenants under welfare statutes like the Rent Control Act. The purpose of the Act is to safeguard tenants, preventing unjust evictions based on property transfers aimed at creating grounds for eviction. The proviso to Section 21 imposes restrictions on eviction applications related to recently purchased properties. In this case, the respondent-landlord had purchased the shop in 1979, and after the appellant's father's death, the appellant became a statutory tenant entitled to protection. The respondent successfully proved the bonafide requirement for eviction, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal. The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the eviction order. However, considering the appellant's family's long possession of the shop, a reasonable time until December 31, 2002, was granted for vacating the premises upon furnishing the necessary undertaking within four weeks.
|
