SMT. GIAN DEVI ANAND v. JEEVAN KUMAR AND OTHERS

Tools
Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
(year only)
Citation
[1985] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 1
Whole judgment (for printing)

Source PDF (original scan)
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0

Judgment · Supreme Court of India · decided (year only)

[1985] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 1

Machine-read from a scanned report. Check the printed page before citing. Report an error.

from the premises. The restrictions on the power of the landlords in the matter of recovery of possession of the premises let out by him to a tenant have been imposed for the benefit of the tenants. Inspite of various restrictions put on the landlords's right to recover posses- sion of the premises from a tenant, the right of the landlord to re- cover possession of the premises from the tenant for the bona fide need of the premises by the landlord is recognised by the Act, in case of residential premises. A landlord may let out the premises under various circumstances. Usually a landlord lets out the premises when he does not need it for own use. Circumstances may change and a situation may arise when the landlord may require the premises let out by him for bis own use. It is just and proper that when the land- ) c lord requires the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation, the landlord should be entitled to recover the possession of the pre- mises which continues to be his property inspite of his letting out the same to a tenant. The legislature in its wisdom did recognise this \ '. fact and the Legislarure has provided that bona fide requirement of the landlord for his own use will be a legitimate ground under the Act for the eviction of his tenant from any residential premises. This ground is, however, confined to residential premises and is not made available in case of commercial premises. A landlord who lets out commercial premises to a tenant under certain circumstances may need bona fide the premises for his own use under changed conditions in some future date should not in fairness be deprived of his right to recover the commercial premises. Bona fide need of the landlord will stand very much on the same footing in regard to either class of permises, residential or commercial. We therefore, suggest that Legis- lature may consider the advisability of making the bona fide require- F ment of the landlord a ground of eviction in respect •of commercial premises as well.

M.L.A. Appeal a/lowed.

Report an error in this judgment →

Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0