RASIK AUTO STORES AND ORS. versus NAVIN V. HANTODKAR AND ANR.

RASIK AUTO STORES AND ORS. versus NAVIN V. HANTODKAR AND ANR.

Suit for eviction does not fail merely because the landlord owns and occupies other premises in the city, if the premises are insufficient for his bonafide requirement; adequacy must be assessed.

Parties
Petitioner: RASIK AUTO STORES; Respondent: NAVIN V. HANTODKAR; Respondent: ANR.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposition
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Landlord Tenant, Bonafide Requirement, Maintainability
Property Law Eviction Landlord Tenant Bonafide Requirement Maintainability

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RASIK AUTO STORES

Petitioner

NAVIN V. HANTODKAR

Respondent

ANR.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether landlord's suit for eviction is maintainable under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949 when landlord occupies other premises of his own in the city.

Ratio Decidendi

Suit for eviction does not fail merely because the landlord owns and occupies other premises in the city, if the premises are insufficient for his bonafide requirement; adequacy must be assessed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed