9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Challenge against the High Court judgment setting aside lower court judgments on eviction suit for bona fide requirement. - Whether the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide need for the shop. Analysis: - The appeal challenged the High Court's decision that set aside lower court judgments regarding an eviction suit based on bona fide requirement. The suit involved a shop in Pune rented out for a grocery shop. The landlord's son, Madhukar, needed the shop to start a business. The trial court and the District Court decreed eviction, but the High Court reversed the decision citing lack of evidence of bona fide requirement. - The main issue was whether the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's need for the shop. The High Court based its decision on the assumption that Madhukar could have started a business in 1976 in a shop vacated by a barber. However, evidence showed that Madhukar had not completed his education by 1976 and was not ready to start a business. The trial court and the appellate court accepted this evidence, leading to the eviction order. - The Supreme Court found that the High Court's assumption about Madhukar's readiness to start a business in 1976 was incorrect. Madhukar had not completed his education by then, contrary to the High Court's assumption. The evidence presented by the landlord's son was crucial in establishing the bona fide need for the shop, leading to the eviction order by the lower courts. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and upheld the eviction order. - The Supreme Court allowed time until June 30, 1999, for the respondent to vacate the premises, subject to the condition of filing an undertaking within two weeks. Failure to comply with the conditions would result in the recall of the time extension, allowing the appellant to execute the eviction decree.
|
