REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Mahendra Biharilal Hajela Appellant

V/S

Professor Dayal Krishna Saxena Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

VASUDEV V. TRILOKI NATH [REFERRED TO]
P.D. SHARMA V. RAM LUBHAYA [REFERRED TO]
SAIN DASS BERRY V. M.L. PURI [REFERRED TO]
KHURSHID HAIDER AND OTHERS V. MS. ZUBEDA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA KUMAR SAH V. DISTRICT JUDGE,VARANASI [REFERRED TO]
DR. SITA RAM GANDHI V. DISTRICT JUDGE,MEERUT [REFERRED TO]
S. KUMAR V. OM PARKASH [REFERRED TO]
RAM PARKASH SAROJ V. MOHINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM CHAND SURI V. RAM MURTI GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
KASTURI LAL SHARMA V. KARTAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
S.N. DATTA V. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
JANKI PD. V. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KAMLA AHUJA V. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,MEERUT AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PRATIVA DEVI V. T.V. KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY LAL V. KAMLA DEVI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY LAL IN FEDERAL MOTORS PVT. LTD. V. D.N. DHIR [REFERRED TO]
JHALLANI TOOLS (P) LTD. V. R.K. SONI [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SAHAI V. R.C. BHASIN [REFERRED TO]
FIBRE BOND (SALES) INDIA LTD. V. CHAND RANI [REFERRED TO]
SMT. DARSHAN GARG V. SRI KISHAN DASS [REFERRED TO]
MATTULAL VS. RADHE LAL [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT LALGUPTA VS. BUDHWANTI [REFERRED TO]
J L MEHTA VS. HIRA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
HARGUN DAS VS. REWA CHAND [REFERRED TO]
SHEELA SAPRA VS. NEW ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIAL CO PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBIR SINGH AGGARWAL VS. VIRENDER KUMAR JAM [REFERRED TO]
SAKHI BAI VS. MAJOR SATISH KUMAR SABHARWAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN a landlord seek eviction on the plea that he requires additional accommodation for his married daughters and whether while assessing the need of the landlord, the word "himself" would mean the need of the landlord.

(2.) WHAT is a family. This is how the matter is explained by the Supreme Court of India in Baldev Sahai v. R.C. Bhasin, AIR 1982 SC 1093.

(3.) IN the above case, the landlord was aged 70 years and his wife was aged 65 years. Both were not keeping good health and needed the help of their son. It was held that the Landlord's requirement to accommodate his son and son's family to help him was the requirement of the landlord for "himself". In Vasudev v. Triloki Nath, 1967 PLR (Delhi) 260 the same principle has been laid down. It has been held that if the age of the landlord is such that he cannot live alone and needs the presence, company and assistance of certain members of his family even if those members are not dependent on him, his requirement would be bona fide.

Click here to view full judgment.

MAHENDRA BIHARILAL HAJELA Vs. PROFESSOR DAYAL KRISHNA SAXENA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address