BEGA BEGUM AND ORS. versus ABDUL AHAD KHAN AND ORS.

BEGA BEGUM AND ORS. versus ABDUL AHAD KHAN AND ORS.

The appellants established a bona fide and reasonable requirement for the premises to augment their meagre income and maintain themselves, and the interpretation of 'reasonable requirement' and 'own occupation' adopted by the High Court was legally erroneous. On balance of convenience, the appellants would suffer greater prejudice if denied possession. The legal requirements under Section 11(h) were satisfied, justifying eviction.

Parties
Appellants Plaintiffs: Bega Begum and Ors.; Respondents Defendants: Abdul Ahad Khan and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 October 1978
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment Dated 10 10 1967 of Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Civil First Appeal No. 18 of 1966
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Reasonable Requirement, Own Occupation, Balance of Convenience, Interpretation of Rent Control Legislation
Civil Law Landlord Tenant Eviction Reasonable Requirement Own Occupation Balance of Convenience Interpretation of Rent Control Legislation

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bega Begum and Ors.

Appellants Plaintiffs

Abdul Ahad Khan and Ors.

Respondents Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment Dated 10 10 1967 of Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Civil First Appeal No. 18 of 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants had a bona fide and reasonable requirement for the premises under Section 11(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966
  2. 2 Meaning of 'reasonable requirement' and 'own occupation' under Section 11(h)
  3. 3 Approach to balance of convenience in eviction suits

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants established a bona fide and reasonable requirement for the premises to augment their meagre income and maintain themselves, and the interpretation of 'reasonable requirement' and 'own occupation' adopted by the High Court was legally erroneous. On balance of convenience, the appellants would suffer greater prejudice if denied possession. The legal requirements under Section 11(h) were satisfied, justifying eviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of the High Court set aside
  • Decree for eviction of the defendants from the house in dispute is passed against the defendants