9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of eviction application for non-residential premises under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. 2. Co-owner's right to file eviction suit without explicit consent of other co-owners. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of eviction application for non-residential premises under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973: The case involved the respondent seeking eviction of the appellant from a shop for his bona fide personal requirement to run a wholesale business in Ayurvedic medicines. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, citing lack of proof of bona fide requirement and absence of consent from the respondent's sisters, who were co-owners. However, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, finding in favor of the respondent's requirement. The High Court referred to previous judgments and held that eviction for personal requirement in non-residential buildings was permissible post the striking down of relevant provisions. Citing various precedents, including Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, allowing eviction based on the landlord's personal need for the non-residential property. Issue 2: Co-owner's right to file eviction suit without explicit consent of other co-owners: The judgment discussed the right of a co-owner to file an eviction suit without explicit consent from all co-owners. Referring to the case of India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla, the Court established that one co-owner can sue for eviction on behalf of all co-owners, assuming their consent unless proven otherwise. It was clarified that a co-owner cannot withdraw consent during the suit to prejudice other co-owners. The Court emphasized that a suit filed by a co-owner is legally maintainable without the need to demonstrate prior consent from other co-owners. In the absence of evidence showing objection from co-owners, the initiation of eviction proceedings by a co-owner remains valid. The judgment highlighted that there is no legal requirement for a co-owner to possess specific qualifications or experience to run a business on the property in question, as long as the bona fide requirement for eviction is established. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the eviction based on the respondent's bona fide requirement for the non-residential property. The judgment clarified the legality of eviction applications for non-residential premises under the relevant Act and reiterated the rights of co-owners to file eviction suits without explicit consent from all co-owners, provided there is no objection from them during the proceedings.
|
