LAW FOR ALL

Rent control case - Eviction case - Landlord - tenant - BONA FIDE OCCUPATION for son - trial court allowed the petition - High court reversed the same - Apex court held that we find that the High Court has given too much emphasis to the affidavit filed by the witness Vijay Pratap Singh that the appellant attempted to sell disputed shop to him. It is relevant to mention here that the said fact was denied by the appellant. In our opinion, merely for the reason that some witness has stated that the landlord attempted to sell the property his statement cannot be said to be reliable, as has been believed by the High Court or the Appellate Court, unless such fact is supported with documentary proof. There appears no document on record to support the bald statement of the witness Vijay Kumar Singh to dislodge the case of bonafide requirement of the shop claimed by the appellant for his son who was unemployed. Another fact relied by the High Court pertains to the fact that elder son of the appellant was running a business as a tenant in a shop opposite to the disputed shop. Had it been found that the son for whom the landlord needed the shop had already got his own shop, it could have been said that the need for the landlord is not genuine, but in the present case if one of the sons was running his business that too in a rented accommodation, it cannot be said that the need of the landlord was not bonafide. The sons of the appellant are not supposed to starve on street till the shop is actually vacated for them = CIVIL APPEAL NOs.7796-7797 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P(c) Nos.34694-34695 of 2013) KRISHNA KUMAR RASTOGI ….APPELLANT VERSUS SUMITRA DEVI ….RESPONDENT = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41837