PREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHA versus HAKIMUDDIN SAIFI

PREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHA versus HAKIMUDDIN SAIFI

For eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the landlord need only prove absence of suitable non-residential accommodation. Disclosure of residential accommodation and its suitability is not required.

Parties
Appellant: Prem Narayan Barchhiha; Respondent: Hakimuddin Saifi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court judgments set aside; orders of 1st Appellate Court restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bonafide Requirement, Alternative Accommodation
Landlord Tenant Rent Control Eviction Bonafide Requirement Alternative Accommodation

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prem Narayan Barchhiha

Appellant

Hakimuddin Saifi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether landlord is required to disclose possession of residential accommodation and prove it is not suitable for non-residential purposes when seeking eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi

For eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the landlord need only prove absence of suitable non-residential accommodation. Disclosure of residential accommodation and its suitability is not required.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court judgments set aside; orders of 1st Appellate Court restored.

Orders

  • Eviction suits decreed in favour of appellant landlord.
  • No order as to costs.