Belde Venkatesham Vs. Chokkarapu Lakshmi Narasiah - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/651503 |
| Subject | Property |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Mar-15-1977 |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 726 of 1976 |
| Judge | Jaswant Singh,; R.S. Sarkaria and; V.R. Krishna Iyer, JJ. |
| Reported in | AIR1977SC1504; (1977)2SCC586; 1977(9)LC441(SC) |
| Appellant | Belde Venkatesham |
| Respondent | Chokkarapu Lakshmi Narasiah |
| Appellant Advocate | G.S. Sastry and; B. Kantarao, Advs. |
| Respondent Advocate | V.P. Sarathi and ; A. Sabba, ; Rao, Advs.- |
Excerpt:
tenancy - eviction - tenancy law - landlord filed eviction suit against tenant on ground of bonafide requirement of tenanted premises - landlord found to have purchased property for setting up hardware business for his sons - reasonable requirement of premises established by landlord - eviction petition granted. - section 28: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] appointment of lecturer eligibility criteria/qualification - held, it cannot be disputed that in the matter of selection of candidates, opinion of the selection committee should be final, but at the same time, the selection committee cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/qualification in the selection process during its midstream. in the instant case, the advertisement which was issued for filling up the post..........eviction on the ground of bonafides requirement to commence a business both the landlord and the tenant are hardware merchants in the same area. the landlord purchased the property apparently for the purpose of setting up his sons to start a hardware business and after buying the property sent a notice to the tenant appellant demanding surrender of possession. thereafter, proceedings were instituted for recovery of possession on the ground of bonafide requirement as stated above. the trial court dismissed the eviction petition but the appellate court up held the bonafide requirement set up by the landlord. the high court affirmed the view taken by the appellate court.2. we have heard counsel on both sides and are satisfied that there is hardly any substance in the appellant's.....
Judgment:v.R. Krishna Iyer, J.
1. This appeal by special leave assails the order of the High Court affirming the decision of the appellate court directing eviction of the appellant tenant from the building belonging to the landlord-respondent who applied for eviction on the ground of bonafides requirement to commence a business Both the landlord and the tenant are hardware merchants in the same area. The landlord purchased the property apparently for the purpose of setting up his sons to start a hardware business and after buying the property sent a notice to the tenant appellant demanding surrender of possession. Thereafter, proceedings were instituted for recovery of possession on the ground of bonafide requirement as stated above. The trial court dismissed the eviction petition but the appellate court up held the bonafide requirement set up by the landlord. The High Court affirmed the view taken by the appellate court.
2. We have heard counsel on both sides and are satisfied that there is hardly any substance in the appellant's contention. Even so the fact remains that for 27 years the appellant has been being hardware trade in the suit premises and it would be a hardship for him to be ejected outright. We consider it right to grant him time till 13th April, 1978 to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord respondent. Counsel for the appellant on behalf of his client undertakes to give vacant possession on or before 13th April, 1978. On this undertaking we direct that no eviction proceedings shall be taken out by the respondent till that date.