DATTATRAYA LAXMAN KAMBLE versus ABDUL RASUL MOULIALI KOTKUNE AND ANR.

DATTATRAYA LAXMAN KAMBLE versus ABDUL RASUL MOULIALI KOTKUNE AND ANR.

A landlord's bona fide requirement cannot be negated solely on the ground of lack of prior experience if he is otherwise academically qualified; experience is not a necessary pre-condition for initiating business, and interference by the High Court with concurrent findings of fact on this solitary ground is a jurisdictional error.

Parties
Appellant Landlord: Dattatraya Laxman Kamble; Respondent Tenant: Abdul Rasul Mouliali Kotkune; Respondent: Another Respondent
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order in W.p. No. 3764 of 1982
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Impugned High Court judgment set aside. Writ petition remitted for fresh disposal on remaining point.
Legal Topics
Bona Fide Requirement, Eviction of Tenant, Landlord's Need for Premises, Appellate Review of Fact Finding
Rent Control Eviction Bona Fide Requirement Eviction of Tenant Landlord's Need for Premises Appellate Review of Fact Finding

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dattatraya Laxman Kamble

Appellant Landlord

Abdul Rasul Mouliali Kotkune

Respondent Tenant

Another Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order in W.p. No. 3764 of 1982

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord's requirement for the premises is bona fide under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether lack of experience negates the landlord's bona fide requirement for starting a new business
  3. 3 Extent of High Court's jurisdiction in interfering with finding of fact in writ jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

A landlord's bona fide requirement cannot be negated solely on the ground of lack of prior experience if he is otherwise academically qualified; experience is not a necessary pre-condition for initiating business, and interference by the High Court with concurrent findings of fact on this solitary ground is a jurisdictional error.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Impugned High Court judgment set aside. Writ petition remitted for fresh disposal on remaining point.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The impugned High Court judgment is set aside.