Whether bonafide need of landlord can be judged by assertion or denial of parties?

It is a well settled law in this branch that the need of the landlord must be reasonable and must be bona fide in order to evict the tenant on the relevant provisions of the various Acts. Whether in a particular situation the need was reasonable or bona fide must be judged from the objective view point not merely by assertion or denial of the parties. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court applying the tests which appeared to him to be objective tests found, that such need is not bona fide or reasonable.

MANU/SC/1000/1987

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 3117 of 1984

Decided On: 25.11.1987

Govind  Vs. Dr. Jeet Singh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sabyasachi Mukherjee and S. Ranganathan, JJ.

Print Page

When story of complete denial of accused U/S 313 of CRPC can not be relied on?

The admitted facts remain that the appellant had no relationship
or acquaintance with the complainant whatsoever and the appellant
failed to furnish any explanation about his visit and staying in the
house of the complainant. The appellant has not denied visit to the
house of the complainant. More so, he did not furnish any explanation
in respect of recovery of Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his pant nor he
could furnish any information as how his fingers turned pink on being
washed, with sodium carbonate solution as the currency notes already
found in pocket of his pant had been treated with phenolphthalein. On
being washed, part of his pant also turned pink.
Even in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant
answered every question saying “I do not know” or “it is incorrect”
but when he was asked as to whether he wanted to say anything else,
he answered as under:-

“I am innocent and Prabhat Chand had lodged a false
case against him, because he had encroached the land of
Shri Vakil Chand as per his demarcation”.
We do not find any force in the submission advanced by Shri
D.K. Garg that it is the prosecution which has to establish each and
every fact and the accused has a right only to maintain silence.
 The accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding any incriminating
material that has been produced against him. If the accused has been
given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as
before the court, then the accused may choose to maintain silence or
even remain in complete denial when his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. is being recorded. However, in such an event, the court would
be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference
against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law.
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2271 of 2011
Phula Singh  V  State of Himachal Pradesh 
Citation;March 3, 2014.

Print Page