KRISHNAN NAIR & ANR. ETC. versus GHOUSE BASHA

KRISHNAN NAIR & ANR. ETC. versus GHOUSE BASHA

In this case, the sons of the landlord were actively carrying on the business with other partners and were not merely sleeping partners. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to seek eviction under s. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for the bona fide requirement of the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Krishnan Nair & Anr.; Respondent: Ghouse Basha
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 September 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Decision of Madras High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Requirement of Landlord, Partnership Business, Family Members in Business
Property Law Landlord Tenant Law Eviction Requirement of Landlord Partnership Business Family Members in Business

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishnan Nair & Anr.

Appellant

Ghouse Basha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Decision of Madras High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether eviction can be ordered under s. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 when the landlord's sons need the premises for a business in partnership with others (strangers).

Ratio Decidendi

In this case, the sons of the landlord were actively carrying on the business with other partners and were not merely sleeping partners. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to seek eviction under s. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for the bona fide requirement of the premises for his sons' business, even if they run the business in partnership with non-family members.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order and judgment of the High Court upheld
  • No order as to costs