RAMNIKAL PITAMBARDAS MEHTA versus INDRADAMAN AMRATLAL SHETH

RAMNIKAL PITAMBARDAS MEHTA versus INDRADAMAN AMRATLAL SHETH

The landlord's bona fide requirement for occupation includes cases where he may need to carry out repairs or alterations; s. 13(1)(g) applies and s. 13(1)(hh) does not apply when the premises are required for personal occupation, even after alterations.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta; Respondent: Indradaman Amratlal Sheth
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 April 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against High Court Dismissal of Revision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Personal Requirement, Statutory Interpretation, Bonafide Requirement
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Ejectment Personal Requirement Statutory Interpretation Bonafide Requirement

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta

Appellant

Indradaman Amratlal Sheth

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against High Court Dismissal of Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether landlord's requirement for possession after repairs falls under s. 13(1)(g) or s. 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord's bona fide requirement for occupation includes cases where he may need to carry out repairs or alterations; s. 13(1)(g) applies and s. 13(1)(hh) does not apply when the premises are required for personal occupation, even after alterations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Three months allowed for vacating premises upon defendant tenant undertaking to vacate during this period