Landlord wins 42-yr-old battle against tenant
Mar 24, 2011, 01.28AM IST TNN
[ Swati Deshpande ]
MUMBAI: The dispute had landed in the small causes court in the same year that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Four rounds and over four decades of litigation later, the trip finally ended in a victory for a Bandra landlord in an eviction battle against a tenant.
A few weeks ago, an appeal bench of S D Darne and A K Shah of the small causes court confirmed a 2010 eviction order. The bench held that the landlords-Clarence Fernandes, Ralph Fernandes and four other brothers, two of whom died since the suit was originally filed-had made out a case of their bona fide requirement and to recover the tenanted 850 sq ft flat in the three-storey building that their father built. The Fernandes family had launched the "lawful attempts" to get back their ancestral premises in 1969, but their victory may not translate into a recovery of premises just yet.
In November 2010, the small causes trial judge passed an eviction decree against the tenants occupying a first-floor flat in Charlesville House in Bandra (W). The tenants- widow of the original tenant, Yasmin Badshah, her son Shahid Badshah and daughter-in-law Tasreen Khan-sought a stay. The judges granted a two-month stay on the eviction so that the tenants could challenge the order in the Bombay high court.
The landlords and other members of their family, through their lawyers Divyakant Mehta and MP Vashi, argued that they needed the flat so that the brothers could stay close to their mother.
The Bombay Rent Act allows a landlord to claim recovery for his genuine need.
In this case, the landlords got part reprieve in 1975. In 1976, the tenants went in appeal and lost. The matter went to HC in 1988 and both sides agreed to go for a re-trial before the small causes court. The battle started afresh and ended in 2011 with the court ruling in the landlords' favour. The tenants argued that they couldn't find alternative accommodation, adding that the landlords were rich and could afford to live elsewhere.
Holding that evidence during trial showed that Shahid and his wife were persons of "good means and financial resources and could easily get premises of their choice, at least on rent", the judges said the tenants, if evicted, would not suffer more hardships than the landlords.
A few weeks ago, an appeal bench of S D Darne and A K Shah of the small causes court confirmed a 2010 eviction order. The bench held that the landlords-Clarence Fernandes, Ralph Fernandes and four other brothers, two of whom died since the suit was originally filed-had made out a case of their bona fide requirement and to recover the tenanted 850 sq ft flat in the three-storey building that their father built. The Fernandes family had launched the "lawful attempts" to get back their ancestral premises in 1969, but their victory may not translate into a recovery of premises just yet.
In November 2010, the small causes trial judge passed an eviction decree against the tenants occupying a first-floor flat in Charlesville House in Bandra (W). The tenants- widow of the original tenant, Yasmin Badshah, her son Shahid Badshah and daughter-in-law Tasreen Khan-sought a stay. The judges granted a two-month stay on the eviction so that the tenants could challenge the order in the Bombay high court.
The landlords and other members of their family, through their lawyers Divyakant Mehta and MP Vashi, argued that they needed the flat so that the brothers could stay close to their mother.
The Bombay Rent Act allows a landlord to claim recovery for his genuine need.
In this case, the landlords got part reprieve in 1975. In 1976, the tenants went in appeal and lost. The matter went to HC in 1988 and both sides agreed to go for a re-trial before the small causes court. The battle started afresh and ended in 2011 with the court ruling in the landlords' favour. The tenants argued that they couldn't find alternative accommodation, adding that the landlords were rich and could afford to live elsewhere.
Holding that evidence during trial showed that Shahid and his wife were persons of "good means and financial resources and could easily get premises of their choice, at least on rent", the judges said the tenants, if evicted, would not suffer more hardships than the landlords.
The fact that the landlord is affluent is of little consequence if he proves, as was done in this case, that his need for the premises is genuine, said the court. "Only because a landlord is rich, a decree of recovery cannot be refused,"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment