9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Suit for eviction decree based on violation of Clauses (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and reasonable requirement.
Reasonable Requirement Issue: The plaintiff sought eviction of the tenant-defendant based on reasonable requirement for himself and his wife, as they were staying as licensees and had strained relations with their son. The Trial Judge found in favor of the plaintiff, but on appeal, it was argued that subsequent events, including the death of the plaintiff and his wife, changed the circumstances. The grandson of the plaintiff, who inherited the property, claimed the requirement for himself. However, the Court held that the grandson could not benefit from the decree based on reasonable requirement as the original claim did not include him, and it would be a new cause of action for the legatee. Violation of Clauses Issue: The defendant contested the allegations of encroachment and obstruction under Clauses (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108. The Trial Judge relied on a Commissioner's report indicating a newly constructed wall by the defendant. However, the defendant argued that there was no new construction and that the bath and privy were part of his tenancy. The Court found that the Commissioner's report lacked proper evidence of new construction and that the defendant did not encroach on common areas. Consequently, the Court set aside the eviction decree based on violation of Clauses (m), (o), and (p) of the Transfer of Property Act. In conclusion, the Court ruled that the grandson of the original plaintiff could not benefit from the decree based on reasonable requirement and that the eviction decree based on violation of Clauses (m), (o), and (p) was not valid. The grandson was advised to file a fresh suit if needed, and the appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.
|
