FARUK ILAHI TAMBOLI &ANR. versus B.S. SHANKARRAO KOKATE (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

FARUK ILAHI TAMBOLI &ANR. versus B.S. SHANKARRAO KOKATE (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

The ownership of property carries the right to use as owner chooses. The appellants' purchase of the tenanted shop, its size being typical for their intended business, and lack of credible alternative for retail betel business, establish their bona fide need. Additional properties held by the appellants are unsuitable for this purpose. Comparative hardship also favors the appellants, as the respondent-tenant possesses other business avenues and premises.

Parties
Appellants / Petitioners: Faruk Ilahi Tamboli & Anr.; Respondents: B.S. Shankarrao Kokate (D) by LRs. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Bombay High Court Writ Petition No. 2254 of 1993
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Bonafide Need of Landlord, Comparative Hardship, Shop Premises Eviction, Standard Rent Determination
Rent Control Eviction Bonafide Need of Landlord Comparative Hardship Shop Premises Eviction Standard Rent Determination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faruk Ilahi Tamboli & Anr.

Appellants / Petitioners

B.S. Shankarrao Kokate (D) by LRs. & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Bombay High Court Writ Petition No. 2254 of 1993

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants / landlords require the tenanted premises for their bona fide need for their own business
  2. 2 Whether the acquisition of other properties by the appellants during the pendency of the eviction proceedings affects their bona fide need
  3. 3 Whether the respondent-tenant would suffer greater comparative hardship on eviction

Ratio Decidendi

The ownership of property carries the right to use as owner chooses. The appellants' purchase of the tenanted shop, its size being typical for their intended business, and lack of credible alternative for retail betel business, establish their bona fide need. Additional properties held by the appellants are unsuitable for this purpose. Comparative hardship also favors the appellants, as the respondent-tenant possesses other business avenues and premises.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of IV Additional District Judge, Sholapur dated 21.04.1993, and High Court dated 26.02.2010 set aside
  • Eviction decree granted to appellants