9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of the premises u/s 13(1)(g) of the Act. 2. Pleading and evidence regarding the purpose of requirement. 3. Change of user from residential to non-residential u/s 25 of the Act. 4. Comparative hardship. Summary: 1. Requirement of the Premises u/s 13(1)(g) of the Act: The respondent, a Public Charitable Trust, required the suit premises for the activity of the trust, specifically for establishing a students' hostel. Both the trial court and the appellate court found in favor of the respondent trust, establishing its requirement for the premises u/s 13(1)(g) of the Act. The appellate court decreed the suit for possession, directing the petitioner to hand over the premises to the respondent trust. 2. Pleading and Evidence Regarding the Purpose of Requirement: The petitioner argued that there was no specific pleading regarding the purpose of the requirement. However, the court noted that the respondent, being a public charitable trust, had adequately pleaded and proved its requirement for the premises for the purposes of the trust. The evidence presented by the respondent's witnesses, including the Secretary of the Trust and the Principal of the College, supported the requirement for a students' hostel. The court held that the respondent's pleading and evidence were sufficient to meet the requirements u/s 13(1)(g) of the Act. 3. Change of User from Residential to Non-Residential u/s 25 of the Act: The petitioner contended that using the premises for a students' hostel would change the nature of the premises from residential to non-residential, which is prohibited u/s 25 of the Act. The court rejected this argument, stating that a students' hostel is inherently a residential use. The court emphasized that a hostel is a residence for students, and the prohibition u/s 25 of the Act would not apply in this case. 4. Comparative Hardship: The appellate court found that the respondent trust would suffer greater hardship if the decree for possession was refused, as there was no alternate accommodation available to achieve the trust's objectives. The court noted that the petitioner had not provided positive evidence to show that he would be unable to secure alternate accommodation. The appellate court applied the correct tests and concluded that the respondent trust would face greater hardship compared to the petitioner. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed with costs, upholding the appellate court's decision to grant possession of the premises to the respondent trust. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the requirement, pleading, change of user, and comparative hardship.
|
