Whether eviction decree on ground of bonafide need can be refused to landlord if he fails to disclose that he is possession of several properties?

However, the respondent-landlords, have not at all been candid with the Court insofar as the pleadings are concerned. In the course of evidence, it has come on record that the respondent-landlords have, besides the suit premises several other premises, which are being used by them for purposes of commerce as well as residence. Some of the premises, may have been acquired post the institution of the suit including in particular, the premises acquired by one of the sons of Baitullah Shaikh. Nevertheless, there were no disclosures volunteered in the course of examination-in-chief. Even if, the premises subsequently acquired are left out of consideration, there was a duty upon the respondent-landlords to fully and candidly make disclosure about the premises in their occupation, both for the purposes of residence as well as commerce and thereafter to explain, howsoever briefly, the subsistence of the need in respect of suit premises. The respondent-landlords have completely failed in this aspect. Such non-disclosure is a relevant consideration in the context of determining both the reasonability as well as bona fides.

Nevertheless, from the material on record, it is apparent that the landlords have in their occupation several properties and carry on several businesses and these facts were suppressed by the landlords in their plaints seeking eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. The belated explanation that some of the properties are taken on rent or rented, that some of the properties are not in the names of the landlords or that some of the properties are joint family properties, hardly inspire any confidence. In any case, the reasons, do not apply to all the properties in regard to which, the material has been produced on record by the applicants. It was the duty of the landlords to have made disclosure in their pleadings and thereafter, offered explanation, howsoever brief, as to how despite the occupation of all such properties, need in respect of the suit premises subsists and is further bona fide and reasonable. Such pleading or disclosure, would have enabled the applicants to meet the case set out by the landlords. In absence of such disclosures on vital and relevant matters, no decree of eviction under Section 16(1)(g) of the Rent Act is sustainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 770 of 2013, 

Decided On: 04.08.2015

 Vasant Mahadeo Gujar and Ors. Vs.  Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak, J.

Citation: 2016(4) ALLMR 174

Print Page

Whether muslim father can make family arrangement in respect of family properties?

It is true that there is no concept of joint family in Muslims but it was open to late Shri Shaikaji to give his property to his children in a particular manner during his lifetime, which he rightly did, so as to avoid any dispute which could have arisen after his death. The arrangement so made was duly accepted by the family members and it was also acted upon. Only thereafter a formal record of the said fact was made by late Shaikaji in Ex. D.7.

14. In our opinion, genuineness of Ex. D7 was rightly not questioned by the lower Appellate Court and the High Court was not correct when it questioned its legality and validity, especially when the Plaintiffs had filed a suit after more than 25 years of the aforestated understanding, which had taken place during or prior to 1958.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7237 of 2010

Decided On: 29.06.2016

 Ajambi Vs. Roshanbi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anil R. Dave and A.K. Goel, JJ.

Citation:(2017) 11 SCC 544

Print Page

Whether other properties can be included in partition suit after passing of preliminary decree by amendment?

 The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that in a partition suit, even after passing of preliminary decree, can be included other properties to serve the ends of justice and to avoid  for multiplicity of proceedings and in the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the suit properties particularly, survey numbers, but only with regard to one of the boundaries in Advocate Commissioner's report does not tally with plaint schedule. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that the cause of action of the suit will not be changed, if permitted to amend the schedule of properties. The learned counsel further submitted that the main object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to avoid multiplicity of suits and in the instant case, it is mere rectification of mistakes in the description of properties  which is permissible in law and therefore, prayed for to set aside the dismissal order passed by the trial court.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 10.07.2014

Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH

C.R.P.(PD).No.614 of 2008 and
M.P.No.1 of 2008


1.Minor Anitha
represented by Mother Guardian Poongodi

2. Poongodi ... Petitioners


Vs.

1.Rajamanickam

2.Shankar

3. Kamala .. Respondents


CitationAIR 2015(NOC)297 MADRAS

Print Page

Whether the court can permit Decree holder to cross examine judgment debtor as to his properties in execution of decree?

In my view, merely because     affidavit in rejoinder is not filed by the 
Judgment Creditor  to the affidavits  filed by the Judgment Debtor, this court 

cannot come to the conclusion   that what is stated in the affidavit filed in 
response   to   the   order   passed   by   this   court,       under   Order   21   Rule   41,   is 
deemed to have been proved and no further enquiry about the correctness 
thereof would be necessary.  Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. 
Baru Ram Banarsi Dass (supra) has considered similar situation and has held 
that the   purpose of order 21 rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to 
ascertain property if any owned by the Judgment Debtor so that the same may 
be   sold for recovery of the decretal amount.   It is held that   no prejudice 
would be caused to the Judgment Debtor  if he is cross examined  provided he 
has nothing to   conceal from the court and if the Judgment debtor actually 
does not have any property, he should   have nothing to fear from his cross 
examination.   Punjab & Haryana High Court has   held that the examination 
within   the   purview   of   Order   21   Rule   41   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure, 
includes cross examination because  the  purpose is to ascertain whether the Judgment   Debtor       has   any   property     so   that   the   money   decree   can   be 
satisfied.  It is held that      if cross examination is not permitted the Judgment 
Debtor may   falsely state   that he does not own   any property and   if the 
Judgment Debtor is cross examined, there would be nothing illegal therein.  I 
am in agreement with the  views expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court. In my view,  the principle laid down by the   Punjab & Haryana High 

Court in  the case of  M/s. Baru Ram Banarsi Dass (supra) are applicable to 
extended to   this case.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1170 OF 2009
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 463 OF 2009
IN

AWARD NO. 8 OF 2004

M/s. LA'Builde Associates  Vs Bipinchandra Narandas Dalal 

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 6TH SEPTEMBER,  2013
Citation;2013(6)ABR406, 2013(6)ALLMR497

Print Page