SMT. RAMKUBAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. versus HAZARIMAL DHOKALCHAND CHANDAK AND ORS.

SMT. RAMKUBAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. versus HAZARIMAL DHOKALCHAND CHANDAK AND ORS.

The bona fide requirement of the landlady for her son to establish independent Kirana business is not negated by his interim employment as a contractor or the existence of other family business. Relief cannot be denied if the intent to start family business exists; greater hardship would be caused to the landlady if eviction is refused.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Ramkubai (since deceased) by LRs.; Respondents: Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak and legal representatives of Lalehand Dhokalchand Chandak
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Bombay High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside; trial court decree under Section 13(1)(g) restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Personal Requirement, Bonafide Requirement, Hardship Assessment
Rent Control Landlord Tenant Law Eviction Personal Requirement Bonafide Requirement Hardship Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Ramkubai (since deceased) by LRs.

Appellant

Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak and legal representatives of Lalehand Dhokalchand Chandak

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlady's requirement for the suit premises for her son to establish independent Kirana business is bona fide under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant landlady will suffer greater hardship than the tenants if the decree for eviction is not passed.

Ratio Decidendi

The bona fide requirement of the landlady for her son to establish independent Kirana business is not negated by his interim employment as a contractor or the existence of other family business. Relief cannot be denied if the intent to start family business exists; greater hardship would be caused to the landlady if eviction is refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside; trial court decree under Section 13(1)(g) restored.

Orders

  • Judgment and order of High Court under appeal set aside.
  • Order of trial court restored in relation to Section 13(1)(g).