Rent Act - Bona fide requirement of son – Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit – Mere fact that the son of the landlord was involved in another business subsequently, the bona fide need of the premises cannot be doubted - It would be  inappropriate to expect the son of the landlord to sit idle without doing any work till the eviction petition is decided on the basis of the bona fide requirement - If there is categorical averment by the landlord that the premises is required for his son; engaging in the business of utensils in the meanwhile, cannot be a ground to deny a decree for eviction. (2018)2 Supreme Court e@Journal 1885


Rent Act - Bona fide need – Remand  - Tribunal dismissed eviction petition holding that ap-pellant's need can be accomplished with an alternative space available with her in the city - Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Rent Tribunal - High Court  set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal - Need to remand the case to the Rent Appellant Tribunal has occasioned because the High Court, while allowing the respondent's writ petition and setting aside the order of the Appellate tribunal, came to a conclusion and accordingly held  that the Rent Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant's (landlady's) appeal with a casual approach and failed to record any categorical finding on the plea of bona fide need - Having held that, the High Court had two options: first either to remand the case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law and second, to decide the matter itself on merits in accordance with law -  Since the High Court heard the matter in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it was not possible to examine the issue on facts in detail like an Appellate Court -  High Court ought to have resorted to first option and remanded the case back to the Rent Appellate Tribunal, and therefore, committed an error in not taking recourse to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case on its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal - Caused prejudice because there was no factual finding recorded either by the first appellate Court or the High Court on the question of bona fide need -  Rajasthan Rent Control Act, Section 9. (2018)2 SCeJ 1572


Rent Act –  Bonafide requirement – Mere fact that father is in ownership  of adjoining property would not make the plea of bona fide personal necessity of son untenable because as long as  father is alive son has no right in self acquired property of his father. (2018) 3 Punjab Law Reporter



Rent Act –  Bonafide requirement –  Father has sought to settle his son in the business shows the wish of a father to adjust his son in the business during his life time - If a person living in India can carry on business in foreign country, son of petitioner can also run and look after his business even if he chooses to live abroad - Modern techniques enable a person to keep watch and run his business smoothly and successfully from a remote place - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (III of 1949) Section 13(3)(a)(i).  (2018) 3 Punjab Law Reporter 

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.