TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Eviction upheld based on landlord's need; caution on prolonged litigation; appeals dismissed.</h1> <h3>GAYA PRASAD Versus PRADEEP SRIVASTAVA</h3> GAYA PRASAD Versus PRADEEP SRIVASTAVA - 2001 AIR 803, 2001 (1) SCR 923, 2001 (2) SCC 604, 2001 (2) JT 426, 2001 (1) SCALE 674 Issues Involved:1. Bona fide requirement of the landlord.2. Consideration of subsequent developments in eviction proceedings.3. Judicial tardiness and its impact on litigation.Summary:1. Bona fide requirement of the landlord:The respondent-landlord filed an application u/s 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant for two reasons: his son, a medical graduate, needed the building for a clinic, and the landlord himself wanted to start a radio repair business post-retirement. The Prescribed Authority found the claim bona fide and ordered eviction on 25.3.1982, noting that the tenant had alternative accommodation.2. Consideration of subsequent developments in eviction proceedings:The appellant challenged the eviction order through various judicial forums, including an appeal and a writ petition, which prolonged the litigation for 23 years. The appellant argued that the landlord's son had joined the Provincial Medical Service and was posted 200 kilometers away, earning Rs. 15,000 per month, thus altering the initial need for eviction. However, the Court emphasized that the crucial date for determining the bona fides of the landlord's requirement is the date of the eviction application. Subsequent developments should not overshadow the genuine need established at the time of filing the petition unless they wholly satisfy the requirement of the landlord.3. Judicial tardiness and its impact on litigation:The Court acknowledged the detrimental impact of judicial delays, noting that the prolonged litigation process can lead to numerous subsequent developments, potentially affecting the original cause of action. The Court cited previous judgments, including Remesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram and Kamleshwar Prasad vs. Pradumanju Agarwal, reiterating that the rights and obligations of parties are generally determined as they were at the commencement of the lis, with cautious consideration of subsequent events only when they materially impact the relief sought.The Court dismissed the appeals, suggesting that High Courts should consider evolving schemes to expedite long-pending cases to prevent similar delays in the future.
TaxTMI 