Dismissed

Shri Arvind Ganpat @ Ravi Patil v. Smt. Sulochana Harishchandra Palkar

Bombay HC12 Jan 2011CRA/479/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant landlord challenged the dismissal of his possession suit by lower courts. The High Court, in revision, rejected the application, holding that the landlord failed to prove reasonable and bonafide need and that premises acquired by the respondent's son in a different town did not constitute suitable alternative accommodation.

What did the court decide?

revision application rejected summarily; original orders affirmed.

Shri Arvind Ganpat @ Ravi Patil Vs Smt. Sulochana… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 CRA No.479/10

¶2

mpt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.479 of 2010

¶6

Shri Arvind Ganpat @ Ravi Patil ... Applicant versus Smt.Sulochana Harishchandra Palkar ... Respondent

¶7

Ms.Anamika A. Motale i/b Mr.S.V.Gavand for the applicant

¶8

CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J

¶9

DATED : 12^th January 2011.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

This revision application is filed by the landlord whose suit for possession has been dismissed by the trial court and the order of dismissal is confirmed by the District Court in appeal.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant presses only two grounds viz. reasonable and bonafide requirement and acquisition of suitable alternative premises by the respondent tenant. Alternative premises were acquired by the son of the respondent in a different town. Respondent who is the widow has no right to stay in the premises allegedly acquired by her son and that too, in a different town. The

¶14

2 CRA No.479/10

¶15

premises of son in a different town cannot be regarded as acquisition of suitable residential premises by the respondent.

¶16

As regards the reasonable and bonafide requirement, the two courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner has not proved that he requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant does not need the premises for use in the existing form but the applicant wants to demolish the existing premises and construct a new building wherein his son wants to open a garage of automobile repairs. Building plans were not prepared, much less approved. The applicant did not produce any material before the trial court to show his financial position and his ability to construct new premises after demolition of the old premises. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the courts below have concurrently held that applicant has not proved that he required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide. The finding recorded by the Courts below is a possible finding of fact requiring no interference in exercise of a revisional jurisdiction. Revision Application is rejected summarily.

¶17

(D.G.KARNIK, J)

Shri Arvind Ganpat @ Ravi Patil v. Smt. Sulochana Harishchandra Palkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Arvind Ganpat @ Ravi Patil v. Smt. Sulochana Harishchandra Palkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jyoti Kishor Pandit and Othrs

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jyoti Kishor Pandit and Othrs

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sulochana Bhaskar Chalke and Othrs

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajkumar Mataprasad Chaube and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Limited Vs Nilam Tukaram Ghag and Othrs

Shri. Ram Dashrathgir Gosavi Vs Dashnam Goswami Sanstha