9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Eviction petition based on bona fide requirement for landlord's son's business, Incorrect assumption by Supreme Court regarding nature of vacant shop, Review of judgment based on new evidence from Rent Controller and appellate authority. Analysis: The Supreme Court reviewed a judgment in an eviction case where the tenant had been granted relief by setting aside the eviction order. The landlord had sought eviction for his son's business, claiming bona fide requirement. The original judgments by the Rent Controller and appellate authority favored the landlord's need for the shop occupied by the tenant. However, the Supreme Court overturned these judgments based on the assumption that a vacant shop behind the tenant's shop was suitable for the son's business, without considering evidence from the Rent Controller and appellate authority. In the review application, it was argued that the assumption made by the Supreme Court was incorrect as the vacant shop was actually a godown, not suitable for business. The Rent Controller and appellate authority had both noted that the vacant area was only fit for use as a godown, which was admitted by the tenant as well. This crucial information was not presented to the Supreme Court during the original hearing, leading to a flawed decision. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the original judgment was made without the benefit of the Rent Controller and appellate authority's findings. Upon reviewing these findings, it was clear that the vacant premises were indeed a godown, not a shop as assumed earlier. Therefore, the Supreme Court accepted the findings of the tribunals and concluded that the objection raised by the tenant was not valid. As a result of the review, the Supreme Court allowed the review petition, set aside the previous judgment, and restored the judgment of the High Court, granting the tenant time to vacate the premises by a specified date. Failure to comply with the conditions set forth would result in immediate eviction as per the High Court's judgment. No costs were awarded in the review application.
|
