|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Article Published in the Express Magazine Dated
April 29, 2001
General Attorney : Rajiv K. Luthra
My landlord has filed an eviction case against
me on the ground of personal requirement. But he
has another accommodation which he can use. What
do you think will be the fate of my case under the
said circumstances?
Kedar S. Rawat, New Delhi
This really depends on the facts and circumstances
of each case. Though the main object of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 is to prevent unreasonable
eviction of tenants, whenever a landlord requires
the property for his bonafide or genuine need, he
can approach the Controller or court for the
eviction of the unwilling tenant. However, the
landlord needs to prove that such a requirement is
not a mere desire but a genuine and reasonable
need. In case the landlord fails to substantiate
with evidence his bonafides before the court, the
latter may conclude that it was merely a pretext
to get rid of the tenant and accordingly, it may
decline the relief of eviction. The landlord would
then be denied any judicial assistance.
As regards the availability of an alternative
accommodation for the landlord, the court would
normally not force the landlord to accept this for
his needs.It would normally permit the landlord to
satisfy the proven need by choosing the
accommodation which he feels would be most suited
for his purpose. The availability of an
alternative accommodation, suitable and convenient
in all respect, may have an adverse bearing as to
the genuine need of the landlord, which, in turn,
may prove beneficial to you. If the landlord fails
to satisfy the court as to why he is not occupying
the suitable alternative accommodation, the court
may infer that his was not a felt need, or that he
was not being honest, sincere and natural.
However, the onus is on the tenant to satisfy the
court that the alternative accomodation which the
landlord has in his possession suits the
requirements of the landlord, especially when
compared to the property occupied by the tenant.
In such cases, the courts also keep in view the
profession and vocation of the landlord and his
family members, their style of living, habits and
their background. The court also takes other
relevant factors into account, namely convenience
and safety of the landlord and his family members.
Why does a Government always enter into a
contract in the name and on behalf of the
President of India or Governor of a particular
State, particularly when neither of them can be
personally held liable in the event of a breach of
the said contract?
Sarvesh Gupta, Nagpur
All government contracts are entered into by or on
behalf of the President of India or the Governor
of a particular State mainly because it is a
mandatory requirement and has been specifically
provided for in Article 229 (1) of the
Constitution of India. The objective behind the
restrictive provision in Article 299(1) and
similar provisions is to govern and regulate such
contracts. The terms of contract and the very
necessity to enter into them should not be decided
without sufficient degree of consideration and
deliberation required to execute the instruments
of contract. A definite procedure followed in a
contract has a binding effect upon the
government.This is why only a government official
who has been duly authorised on behalf of either
the President of India or a Governor of a state
can enter into a government contract.
The Article also clearly indicates the intentions
of the Constitution to safeguard the revenues of
the State and to guard against inefficiency and
deliberate non-observance. It further aims to
prevent the depletion of public funds by
clandestine contracts, which could be made by any
and every public servant who may not have the
authority to do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
