Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Bombay High Court Upholds Landlord’s Right to Eviction: The Need of the Landlord Cannot be Said to be Lacking Bona Fides

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment passed on October 31, 2023, the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad, presided over by Justice Arun R. Pedneker, upheld the landlord’s right to eviction in the case “2023:BHC-AUG:23503.” This landmark decision came as a resolution to a longstanding dispute between Hemantkumar Prabhudasji Vora and various respondents, including Khimji Bhanji and Company, regarding the eviction proceedings under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954.

Justice Pedneker, in his ruling, emphasized the importance of considering the landlord’s bona fide need for the property. He stated, “The need of the landlord cannot be said to be lacking of bona fides,” thus overturning the previous appellate court’s findings. This observation underscores the court’s recognition of a landlord’s legitimate requirements for property possession.

The case centered around the contention that the tenant had secured an alternate plot in the APMC, Latur, which the court acknowledged as an alternate accommodation, thereby making the tenant liable for eviction. The court’s decision also focused on the landlord’s requirement of the property for residence and business, considering the subsequent events, including the demise of the landlord’s parents and the inheritance of ‘Vora Bungalow.’

Justice Pedneker criticized the approach of the Appellate Court in assessing the evidence of the landlord’s bona fide need as erroneous. The High Court’s ruling was particularly impactful in clarifying the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, reinforcing the landlord’s position.

The ruling has garnered significant attention for its potential implications on future landlord-tenant disputes and the interpretation of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act. Advocates S. P. Shah and S. V. Dixit represented the applicant, while R. P. Adgaonkar appeared for the respondents. This decision is seen as a benchmark in the realm of property law, particularly in cases involving eviction proceedings and the assessment of bona fide need.

Date of Decision:31/10/2023

Hemantkumar Prabhudasji Vora VS Khimji Bhanji

Similar News