SHANTILAL THAKORDAS & ORS. versus CHIMANLAL MAGANLAL TELWALA

SHANTILAL THAKORDAS & ORS. versus CHIMANLAL MAGANLAL TELWALA

The right of the landlord to seek eviction for his own and his family's bona fide requirement survives to his heirs upon his death; however, in the present case, since one of the heirs (minor son) had no interest in the partnership and the premises were required for the partnership, the appellants could not succeed in eviction.

Parties
Appellants: Shantilal Thakordas & Ors.; Respondent: Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 August 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment in Revision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Survivorship of Right to Sue, Personal Bona Fide Requirement, Partnership Requirements as Landlord's Requirement
Land Law Tenancy Law Eviction Survivorship of Right to Sue Personal Bona Fide Requirement Partnership Requirements as Landlord's Requirement

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shantilal Thakordas & Ors.

Appellants

Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment in Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right to sue for eviction on the ground of landlord's bona fide personal requirement survives to his heirs on his death under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether the requirement of premises by a partnership firm in which landlord is a partner qualifies as personal requirement
  3. 3 Whether a decree for eviction already passed in favour of the landlord can be disturbed on his death during appeal/revision

Ratio Decidendi

The right of the landlord to seek eviction for his own and his family's bona fide requirement survives to his heirs upon his death; however, in the present case, since one of the heirs (minor son) had no interest in the partnership and the premises were required for the partnership, the appellants could not succeed in eviction.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed without costs