We are tenant of a shop since 1980,our landlord filed case under sec-13 of haryana control of rent and eviction,act 1973 for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity,landlord is 83 years old,he has 2 sons mohan(54y),askok(57y),Landlord has 2 shop ,1 has been rented to us and in second shop landlord is working with his 2 sons ,landlord says that he needs shop for setting his sons independently,Lower and session court has decided in favour of landlord by saying that landlord need is bonafide,Now what is our chance in high court ,Will the case be admitted in high court, On what law point we can admit our case in high court,specially when the trend is against tennant.
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
n a recent decision reported in Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain 2006 (2) SCC 724 held that a landlord is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant under the Act from a non- residential building on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the tenanted premises for his own use and occupation
2) even if appeal is admitted by HC chances of success are bleak
but actually landlord need is not bonafide they are financially well settled,landlord himself does not work as he is 85 years old,his sons are looking after the business,age is not a barrier.how can we say that lanlord need is bonafie,they working in there premises for last 40 years ,what is the change that proves them bonafide ,they should have claimed it when they were young now when they are at the end of there carrier they r demanding it
Landlord has 2 sons
To settle his sons he would need 2 separate shops so that they can manage their business independently
Hence courts have held that he needs to evict you as tenant from the shop
If there is a concurrent finding by the trial and appeals court then the HC is unlikely to upset this finding unless you can prove that the courts below erred on a question of law. Without perusal of the order of the trial court and appellate court is not possible to form an opinion. So consult a lawyer with a copy of the court orders.
If the need is not bonafide, but has been held as bonafide, you have to prove that the need is not bonafide. It has been time and again held by the SC that the landlord is the judge of his own bonafide requirement.
Lower and session court has decided in favour of landlord by saying that landlord need is bonafide,Now what is our chance in high court ,Will the case be admitted in high court,
On what law point we can admit our case in high court,specially when the trend is against tennant.
In my opinion your case do not stand a chance to win in the high court too.
You may better negotiate with the landlord and leave the premises by taking some compensation instead of losing further, money, time and energy as well as mental peace.
but actually landlord need is not bonafide they are financially well settled,landlord himself does not work as he is
85 years old,his sons are looking after the business,age is not a barrier.how can we say that lanlord need is bonafie,they working in there premises for last 40 years ,what is the change that proves them bonafide ,they should have claimed it when they were young now when they are at the end of there carrier they r demanding it
You cannot justify their demand in the way you interpret their life and their stand in the court.
You have to see your bonafides only and not look into their personal life.
If you have any merits in your side then you may fight the case on that basis