MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

Latest Legal News