SMT. G. KAUSHALYA DEVI versus GHANSHY AMDAS

SMT. G. KAUSHALYA DEVI versus GHANSHY AMDAS

A landlord's entitlement to seek eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is not defeated by his occupation of leased premises as a tenant, since 'entitled to possession' refers to ownership or similar rights. Findings of bonafide requirement are neither perverse nor based on any irrelevant material.

Parties
Appellant: SMT. G. Kaushalya Devi; Respondent: Ghan Shyamdas
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Revision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bonafide Requirement of Landlord
Rent Control Property Law Eviction Bonafide Requirement of Landlord

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SMT. G. Kaushalya Devi

Appellant

Ghan Shyamdas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether landlord's bonafide requirement for personal occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is vitiated if the landlord is already in possession of a leased non-residential premises in the same city.
  2. 2 Interpretation of the phrase 'to the possession of which he is entitled' under Section 10(3)(a)(iii).

Ratio Decidendi

A landlord's entitlement to seek eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is not defeated by his occupation of leased premises as a tenant, since 'entitled to possession' refers to ownership or similar rights. Findings of bonafide requirement are neither perverse nor based on any irrelevant material.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant is granted time until October 31, 2000 to vacate the suit premises upon filing of undertaking within four weeks from the date of decision.
  • No order as to costs.