Landlord can evict tenant to start venture: SC

Landlord can evict tenant to start venture: SC

Landlord can evict tenant to start venture: SC

A bench headed by Justice Markandeya Katju said if a landlord has a bonafide need of his let-out premises for starting a new business and is able to prove his or her claim convincingly, he or she cannot be denied eviction.

Refuting the arguments of the tenant, the bench said:“We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim.’’

 Hence, we are of the opinion that the high court should have gone deeper into the question of bonafide need and not rejected it only on the ground that Giriraj (the petitioner’s son) has no experience in footwear business,” the court said while allowing the appeal of landlord Ram Babu Agarwal challenging the rulings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The high court, while interpreting Section 13(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, had concurred with the trial court’s view that the owner, a cloth merchant, could not evict the tenant Jay Kishan Das since his plea that the premises were required to enable Giriraj start a footwear business appeared to be false.
‘On conviction’

The Supreme Court has held that in criminal cases, an accused can be convicted only on clear evidence which is beyond reasonable doubts and not based on mere probabilities.
A bench headed by Justice Dalveer Bhandari said: “In criminal cases, conviction can be sustained only when there is clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the ground that in all probability, the accused may have committed the crime. The approach of the high court is wholly fallacious and unsustainable in law.’’

The apex court passed the judgement while acquitting a man and his father for the alleged dowry death of the former’s wife who committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial house on March 15, 1989, in Tamil Nadu’s Periyar district.

The prosecution had argued  that the victim was subjected to harassment for dowry which drove her to take the extreme step. She had, however, said in her suicide note that nobody was responsible for her death.

The district court rejected the prosecution theory on the ground that evidence indicated that the victim committed suicide as she was depressed because the local panchayat had decided that neither would she visit her parents’ house nor would they visit the matrimonial home.