Start New Business / No Experience Required : 7 Important Case Laws on Eviction

The landlord need not to show evidence that he has experience of said business that he proposes to start. In fact, it is not necessary for landlord to indicate the precise nature of business which he intends to start in the premises.

1. Ram Babu Agarwal v. Jay Kishan Das, (2010) 1 SCC 164

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 new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business and sometimes they are successful in the new business also.

2. Tarsem Singh v. Gurvinder Singh, 173 (2010) DLT 379

If the landlord wants to start his own business in the premises owned by him then by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the requirement of the landlord for the premises is neither bonafide nor genuine.

3. Balwant Singh Chowdhary v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2004 (1) RCR 487

It is not necessary for the landlord to plead and prove the specific business he wants to set up, if the landlord wanted the premises for business purposes.

4. Gurcharan Lal Kumar v. Srimati Satyawati, 2013 (2) RCR (Rent) 120

Merely because the exact nature of business has not been described would not take away their bonafide need to carry out a business (when admittedly both the sons are dependent upon petitioner for this need). It was observed that if the business need is not disclosed this would not wipe away the bonafide need of the landlord as has been pressed under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRCA, 1958.

5. Raj Kumar Khaitan v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun, AIR 1995 SC 576

It was not necessary for the appellants-landlords to indicate the precise nature of the business which they intended to start in the premises. Even if the nature of business would have been indicated nobody would bind the landlords to start the same business in the premises after it was vacated.

6. Mohd. Ayub v. Mukesh Chand (2012) 2 SCC 155 

The hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far greater than the hardship the respondent would suffer by having moved out to another place. We are mindful of the fact that whenever the tenant is asked to move out of the premises some hardship is inherent. We have noted that respondent is in occupation of the premises for a long time. But in our opinion, in the facts of this case that circumstance cannot be sole determinative factor.

7. R.K. Bhatnagar v. Sushila Bhargava, AIR 1987 Delhi 363

He has not filed any site plan wither to show that the site plan filed by the respondent- landlady is incorrect in any way. Hence, I see no reasons to doubt the veracity of the facts stated by the respondent in her affidavit. Likewise, I assume that the site plan filed by her showing the entire accommodation in her occupation is correct.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post