You can file suit for eviction against tenant as you need premises for bonafide personal use and also because tenant has ownership flat in their name
suit for eviction may take some years to be disposed of
My tenants have purchased new ownership flats in mumbai. My son is a special child. There is no lift in my building. Can i evict tenant. They have given their ownership flat on leave and licence (rented). They are staying in my building. I have their all if their flat purchase Agreements and leave and licence agreements. How many years it will take to evict them.
You can file suit for eviction against tenant as you need premises for bonafide personal use and also because tenant has ownership flat in their name
suit for eviction may take some years to be disposed of
You need to file eviction suit if flat is under their possession. Then you can evict them
1. YES.... you can initiate Eviction Suit against the Tenant who has his Title-Ownership property. Pagdi System property CANNOT be further sub-let out to a third party by the Tenant. This shows that Tenant is actually not in need for a house for himself.
2. You can take plea as above and also that you require it for your own bonafide use. You will require all possible documentary evidences and also witnesses, for a Civil Court Eviction Suit proceedings.
3. It just not possible to decide the time frame for all this, specially in Mumbai courts, which is already over-burdened with lakhs of cases.
Issue notice of eviction for bonafide need and tenant acquired alternate accommodation. If not vacated which is sure, Than have to file eviction suit in court.
Case law is clear that landlord should establish for getting an order of eviction on the ground that the tenant has acquired an alternative accommodation. The landlord in order to be entitled to an order of eviction against the tenant under this ground must establish one of the alternative facts positively, either that the tenant has built or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted a residence.
Use these case law in support of your case.
Pagdi is a traditional tenancy model in India.
In Pagdi, the renter is also the co-owner of the property and pays a nominal rent as compared to market “asks” rates.
Besides, the tenant also enjoys additional rights of sub-letting or selling the property.
In this system the only deviating factor is that the tenant becomes a part owner of the house and not of the land.
This tenant continues to pay rent to the owner as long as he is not sub-renting the premises.
Additionally, the tenant has the option to sell the said property while giving a percentage of the gross amount to the owner. This percentage varies from anywhere between 30-50%.
Redevelopment of the property
There are three parties involved when redevelopment of the property is considered – owner, tenant and builder/developer.
As the landlord holds the records of the property, he possesses complete ownership to sell the property.
Once the property is redeveloped by the builders/developers, the landlord takes the profit out of the property at once and permanently. Once the profits are withdrawn, the landlord has no authority over the property.
The tenants who are in possession of the said flat/property after the redevelopment becomes the sole owner of the property.
As per the Maharashtra Rent Control Act of 1999 which came into effect from March 31, 2000, the system was made legal. Section 56 of this Act deemed it legal.
Therefore, a land owner could confer a kind of ownership to the tenant for a deposit of money.
This partial ownership means that the tenant has a certain right over the property but not the land.
In this case, the part-owner can even sublet the premises but the rent that he gets must be divided between the actual owner of the property and the part-owner that is the first tenant.
The original owner gets to earn a little extra, because of such a provision.
Thus you may not be able to file an eviction suit against the pagdi tenant
File an eviction suit against tenant under the ground of own use. In your case the tenant has flat in his name so tenant has an alternative place to stay. In such case you will win in the case and can evict the tenant. It generally takes 1 to 2 years
On e the ground of self use and for the reasons of special child, you may initiate eviction suit against the tenants and the case may be decided in about 2 years or so.
1. send them a legal notice through counsel to evict the premises,
2. upon their refusal, you can file a civil suit for the eviction on the ground of (i) personal bonafide need, and (ii) they have ownership of another building in their name
Bona fide requirement of tenanted property is good ground for eviction of property.
The alternative property belonging to the tenant makes scope for eviction further brightened.
So send an eviction notice and thereafter file eviction suit as advised above.
Talk to a local advocate and do the needful.
Respected sir I have all certified copys of their ownership flat in mumbai and also their flat been put on rent.i have their all certified copys of their leave and licence. I have my sons divyang certificate. Do certified copy need to be proved in court. These agreements have their pan card and aadhar card copys along with the same. Will this make my case strong enough for eviction. Kindly help in the above issue
Secondary evidence admissible in evidence when original is in possession of other party. Court will take judicial notice of certified copy.
Go ahead with eviction process.
You can during trial issue notice to tenant to produce original documents in his possession
if he fails to do so certified copies would be admissible in evidence
Yes you can go ahead
You can first issue legal notice instructing them to vacate the premises since you require it for your own use especially to accommodate your handicapped child.
Let them quote the rules and refuse to vacate, you can then plan to approach court with a petitioin seeking to evict them for the reasons and the documentary evidences you rely upon.
You have to present convincing arguments before court seeking the need to retrieve your premises now under pagdi type rental system
- As per Supreme Court, the landlord need to establish a reasonable requirement , and genuine need of the tenanted property.
- Since, the said leased flat is given to the tenant , and the tenant has already purchased a flat under his ownership , hence the requirement of the tenant of the leased flat is vanished , and your requirement become genuine.
- Hence, on this ground , you can get the possession of the said flat legally after evicting the tenant .
- You should issue a legal notice to the said tenant , and ask to vacate the tenanted flat.
- If no response , then you can file an eviction suit on the ground of bonafide ground.
- After getting the notice from the court , the tenant will have to file an application for leave to defend i.e permission to proceed with trial.
- If, court find your requirement genuine , then his application will not be allowed , and hence within a period of maximum 3 to 6 month , the Court will pass decree of eviction in your favour.
Good luck and dont forget to rating Positively.
The evidence you have is enough to nail the tenants in the eviction suit.
you can definitely evict him for reasonable requirement , but please keep in mind the requirement must be reasonable prudent and justified.
Yes you are entitled to get the possession of the said property on the ground stated by you.
Kindly go through the judgement passed by the Honble Calcutta High Court which is similar to your situation:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
S. A. No. 415 of 1991
Debidas Roy … Appellant
Ms. Sabitri Chatterjee … Respondent.
Judgement on : January 5, 2010.
REASONABLE REQUIREMENT, INSTALLATION OF LIFT: Suit for requirement of the
ground floor being incapable of climbing stairs- Whether Court can dismiss the suit suggesting
installation of lift- The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956- S13(1)(ff)
Fact: Suit for eviction for recovery of possession of ground floor flat on the ground of reasonable
requirement was filed by the plaintiff since she occupying third and fourth floor of the suit
building, virtually incapable of climbing of stairs.
Dismissing the suit Ld. Judge suggested plaintiff to install a lift. Appeal preferred by plaintiff was
allowed and suit was decreed for recovery of khas possession. Defendant filed second appeal
challenging the decree.
Held: The Courts are to consider the genuineness of the requirement of the plaintiff on the existing
state of affairs. It is not permissible to suggest the plaintiff to install a lift when it is not known
wherefrom the fund should come. The Court should not give gratuitous advice or indulge in
fanciful speculation. (Paragraph – 17)
It is for the plaintiff to decide how and in what manner she should live as she is the best judge of
her requirement. Once it is found that she requires accommodation under the occupation of the
defendant, the decree for eviction must follow. (Paragraph – 20)
The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act does not require an owner / landlord to change and alter
the nature and character of her house. (Paragraph – 17)
For the appellant : Mr. S. P. Sarkar,
Mr. Utpal Majumder,
Mr. Sanjay Bose.
For the respondent : Mr. Ushanath Banerjee,
Mr. Saptangshu Bose,
Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee.
The Court: 1. This is an appeal against judgement and decree dated November 23, 1990
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Seventh Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 15 of
1989 reversing the judgement and decree dated December 12, 1988 passed by the learned Munsif,
Second Additional Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 23 of 1987.
2. This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable
3. The defendant is the appellant before this Court.
4. Shearing unnecessary details, the plaintiff, who has been an well-known film and stage
artist and the owner of the suit house, filed this suit for recovery of possession of the ground floor
flat, inter alia, on the ground that she has been suffering from osteo- arthritis and spondylitis and as
such she needed the suit flat situated in the ground floor as she has been virtually incapable of
climbing of stairs. On or about January 5, 1980 at the time of rehearsal of a drama, the plaintiff fell
from the stage to the ground floor of the hall and sustained serious injuries, particularly, in the left
side of her body. She was confined to her bed for some time. After the incident she was unable to
climb stairs without difficulty. As she had regular pains in her legs, she consulted orthopaedic
surgeon, who advised her not to climb stairs. At present, the plaintiff has been occupying the third
and the fourth floor of the suit building. As she was facing immense difficulty in reaching her
present accommodation by climbing of stairs, she needed the ground floor suit flat reasonably for
her use and occupation.
5. The learned trial judge, by the judgement and decree dated December 12, 1988,
dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff was performing as an artist in stages and as
such it could not be said that she was feeling any short of difficulty in climbing of stairs as alleged
by her. The learned judge suggested that a lift could be installed by the plaintiff for reaching her
6. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree passed
by the learned trial judge, preferred an appeal in the court of the learned District Judge, District 24
Pargnas at Alipore. Eventually, the appeal was transferred to the court of the learned Additional
District Judge, Seventh Court at Alipore.
7. The learned Additional District Judge by the judgement and decree dated November 23,
1990, allowed the appeal and consequently, decreed the suit for recovery of khas possession.
8. The defendant has filed this second appeal before this Court challenging the
9. Mr. S. P. Sarkar, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant, submits that the
story of illness of the plaintiff is concocted for the purpose of this suit and she procured, being a
well-known artiest, tailor-made certificates from the orthopaedic surgeon for the purpose of this
suit. Mr. Sarkar strenuously submits the plaintiff did not give up her profession either as a stage
artiest or as a film artist and, therefore, it is clear that the seriousness of her illness is nothing but a
myth. Mr. Sarker submits that the learned judge in the lower appellate court erroneously decreed
the suit, relying upon certificates issued by the doctors long after filing of the suit regardless of the
fact that she peruses an active career in the stage and in the film with a busy schedule even after her
alleged illness. Mr. Sarkar submits that the requirement of the plaintiff is not genuine inasmuch as
she inducts Calcutta Motor Training School, during the pendency of the present suit, at a monthly
rental of Rs. 75/-( Rupees seventy five ) only per month. Mr. Sarkar submits that as the plaintiff did
not utilize the available vacant space in the ground floor, it is impossible to believe that the
requirement of the plaintiff is genuine.
10. The plaintiff deposed as plaintiff’s witness no. 1 in the suit. She stated that in 1980 she
used to perform as an artist in a drama, Amar Kantak. On January 5, 1980, during a rehearsal at
Netaji Mancha, she accidentally fell down on the ground from the stage. She sustained heavy
injuries in the left portion of her body. She was treated by doctors including Dr. A. R. Sahu and Dr.
Sunil Kumar Thakur. She could not attend her professional calls for about six months. Thereafter,
she again joined the profession on the advice of her well-wishers as also for her subsistence. She
was advised by her attending physician not to climb stairs.
11. Dr. Amiya Ranjan Sahu, the plaintiff’s witness no. 6, was a professor and Head of the
department of the Radiology, R. G. Kar Government Medical College at Calcutta. Dr. Sahu opined
that the plaintiff was a patient of osteo-arthritis and spondylitis of lumbo sacral spine.
12. Dr. Sunil Thakur, who deposed as the plaintiff’s witness no. 4, possessed the following
qualifications: M.B.B.S., M.S. (General Surgery), M.S. (Orthopaedic Surgery). The certificate
issued by the Dr. Thakur was exhibited as exhibit no. 12 in the suit. Dr. Thakur stated that he
advised the plaintiff not to do any strenuous work on the knees including climbing of stairs. He
stated that he gave such advice to the plaintiff so that severity of her illness be not increased in
future. Dr. Thakur emphatically suggested that climbing of stairs would aggravate disease of osteoarthritis.
13. It was suggested that the certificate issued by the Dr. Thakur was tailor-made and was
manufactured at the instance of the plaintiff for the purpose of the suit. The learned Additional
District Judge, in my view, rightly held that there was no justification for Dr. Thakur to collude
with the plaintiff and to issue certificate and prescription falsely. The learned Additional District
Judge scanned the evidence of the doctors, that is, plaintiff’s witnesses nos. 4 and 6 and found that
it could not be held that the prescriptions and certificates issued by the doctors were false and
manufactured document created by the plaintiff for this suit.
14. From the materials on record, it is clear that the plaintiff is suffering from osteo-arthritis
and spondylitis of lumbo sacral spine. The plaintiff categorically deposed that she was facing great
hardship in climbing of stairs. Dr. Thakur, a reputed orthopaedic surgeon, advised the plaintiff not
to climb stairs and to take rest as far as possible. Dr. Thakur suggested climbing of stairs by the
plaintiff would aggravate the disease of the plaintiff.
15. The plaintiff is an aged lady. She is a patient of osteo-arthritis and spondylitis of lumbo
sacral spine. I hold that she is in difficulty in climbing of stairs and as such she needs to stay in the
ground floor. Her present accommodation in the third and the fourth floor of the building is not
confluent with her health as she needs to climb stairs to reach the third and the fourth floor of the
16. Mr. Sarkar, learned senior advocate for the appellant, drew my attention that the
plaintiff, in spite of her serious illness, did not give her profession either as a stage artist or a film
artist. The plaintiff stated in her evidence that she resumed her profession after about a gap of six
months on the advice of her well-wishers and for her subsistence. She is appearing in the stages and
in the films for her maintenance. Such continuation of her professional career could not mean that
she is not suffering from osteo- arthritis and spondylitis, particularly having regard to her age.
17. The learned trial judge suggested that the plaintiff could easily instal a lift for reaching
her present accommodation in the third and the fourth floor of the building. It is easy to suggest
somebody to instal a lift, but it is not easy to instal a lift. The Courts are to consider the genuineness
of the requirement of the plaintiff on the existing state of affairs. It was not permissible to suggest
the plaintiff to instal a lift when it is not known wherefrom the fund should come. The court should
not give gratuitous advice or indulge in fanciful speculation. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy
Act does not require an owner – landlord to change and alter the nature and character of her house.
Moreover, the plaintiff cannot be forced to spend a huge sum of the money for installation of a lift
to accommodate a ground floor tenant, who has been paying Rs. 285/- ( Rupees two hundred eighty
five ) only as the monthly rent for a self contained flat in a posh locality at Kolkata.
18. It is true that the plaintiff inducted a tenant, Calcutta Motor Training School, during the
pendency of the suit, but such tenancy was created in respect of a garage. There are two garages by
the side of the kitchen of the defendant and Calcutta Motor Training School was inducted in one of
such garage. It is not expected, considering the status of the plaintiff, to ask the plaintiff to
accommodate herself in the aforementioned garage.
19. The defendant is in occupation of a flat consisting of one bed room, one drawing room,
one store-cum-dinning room, one kitchen and some oval shaped covered space. From the report of
the learned Advocate Commissioner it is clear that such covered space cannot be used as an
independent room. Considering the background of the plaintiff and the accommodation available
with the defendant in the suit premises, there is no scope to grant a decree for partial eviction.
20. I found that the plaintiff is suffering from osteo-arthritis and spondylitis of lumbo sacral
spine. She has difficulties in climbing of stairs. Her attending doctors advised her not to climb stairs
as climbing of stairs shall aggravate her illness. She is an aged lady. She is reputed and well known
film and stage artist. She is entitled to stay in the ground floor of her house. Her desire to stay in the
ground floor is not a fanciful, but it is a genuine necessity in the present condition of her health.
She has no other suitable accommodation. This eviction suit has been instituted on the ground of
reasonable requirement of the plaintiff. The ground has been proved. Therefore, the plaintiff is
entitled to get a decree for eviction. It was for the plaintiff to decide how and in what manner she
should live as she is the best judge of her requirement. Once it is found that she requires
accommodation under the occupation of the defendant, the decree for eviction must follow.
21. The findings of fact by the learned judge in the lower appellate court in grating a decree
for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement are based on materials on record. It is not
possible to up set such findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am of
the view that this appeal involves no substantial question of law requiring interference by this court
in second appeal.
22. There the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The judgement and decree passed by the
learned judge in the lower appellate court are affirmed.
23. I, however, direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this appeal.
24. Xerox certified copy of this judgement and decree, if applied for, are to be supplied to
the applicants expeditiously.
(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.)
Hope this helps.
Please feel free to ask me if you have any other queries.
Well they have alternative accommodation and hence they should leave your house. File an eviction suit. It may take 1-2 years.
Yes it is more than sufficient to get the order of eviction.
You have a good case for eviction
But how would you justify evicting all your tenants
You will have to prove bonafide requirement for all the premises presently occupied by your tenants
Also the documents are registered and certified copy of those documents can definitely be produced in evidence in court. You can always lead secondary evidence for these documents. Since the documents are registered, it gives them more weightage and less burden on you to prove them by leading secondary evidence
Nobody, even God, can predict as to how many years it will take to evict your tenants
Even If a decree is passed in your favour, your tenants may challenge it in higher court by filing appeal and the matter may reach right upto the Supreme Court
So it is inappropriate to ask this question nor will any good lawyer tell you precisely how much time it would take for eviction
You can always explore settlement with your tenants by offering them consideration against their premises because nobody would want to vacate pagdi premises in Mumbai which are highly valuable and expensive
Court will also measure the comparative hardship if decree is passed in landlord's favour as opposed to if it is not so passed
The certified copy is not required to be proved in court because it is already authenticated and if the court wishes to verify the same, the original documents may be summoned from the department/person (as per the provisions of Civil Procedure Code) in whose custody or authority the documents are held.
Your sound goods move forward for eviction. Also file direction petition for producing the original copies of documents(rent agreements) if they failed, it help your case.
Respected sir Tenants have made alterations in flat without landlord permission. They have removed kitchen from original place and made the same in balcony. They say they have taken bmc mumbai permision. I have not given any no objection certificate to them.can this also go against them.they have also enclosed balcony and have put heavy iron grill.how can these be proved in court
Alteration in original structure itself is a ground for eviction. You may prove this by use of original map of house, if you have. otherwise, your oral evidence will also work.
1. Kitchen /Bathroom /WC spaces CANNOT be shifted and BMC does not grant any permission to shift or enclose such spaces.
2. As advised earlier, file eviction suit and include this ground as well.
You must be having original photographs of your house
2) if tenant has made alterations in house without your permission it is ground for eviction
3) mere bmc permission is not sufficient . Consent of landlord is must
Without landlord permission, such alteration is violation of tenancy terms. BmC permission has no value.
Submit pics of alteration
Alterations without permission can be an added ground for eviction
BMC does not give any permission for structural alterations unless the applicant supplies the NOC of landlord
The case will be in your favour with all the evidence and reasons you have for vacating the premises and for recovery of possession.
Collect the BMC plan and file a commission application for getting report with regard to the present stage of the room now. Also file the BMC plan before the court and use it for advance as your evidence
Yes this point of alteration in construction can be used to evict them in court.
File and evacuation suit.
You take the photographs of the structural changes made by the tenant.
However in pagdi system the tenant is half owner of the property, hence whether your pleadings for changes in the structure may be taken into consideration or not will depend on the court and the arguments you may put forth before court
if the alterations are made by a tenant without the permission of the owner it is ground of eviction.
1. You should first send them a eviction notice of one month on ground of self requirement of premises and alterations in flat without permission from you.
2. If they refuse to vacate the premises then you should file eviction suit against your tenant in civil court and it can take around 2 to 3 years to get eviction orders.
Well, this is very weird. They are too confident of not being evicted tgat is why they are treating the house as their own.
Anyways go ahead with the eviction suit.
You should have photographs of the alterations and the restoration done by you.
Since the they have made alterations without your permission it can go against them.
Yes the alterations / changes made without your permission will be helpful to you.
You can file case for eviction for bona fide requirement. Further, they own flat and let out the same will also help your case.