DEAR RAJESH,

I AM VERY MUCH HAPPY TO READ YOUR  THREAD OF WHICH YOU HAVE EXPLAINED IN A PERFECT MANNER .(EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE AN .S.S.C.)

IN MY OPINION YOU NEED NOT VACATE IT,YOU HAVE OBTAINED FULL RIGHTS OF LIVING IN  THE DWELLING HOUSE .(REASON FOR IT U POSSESS THE LAND FOR MORE THAN 32 YEARS).

IF AT ALL ,ANY VACATION NOTICE WILL COME TO YOU, APPROCH AN ADVOCATE AND REPLY WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.

OR IF THEY USE ANY MUSLE POWER AND GOONS, MEET A NEAREST POLICE STATION GIVE COMPLAINT.

I  HOPE THAT U R THE PERFECT RESIDENT OF UR HOUSE. WISH U HAPPY LIVING, ALL THE BEST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Rajesh,

Possession in the land/house more than 32 years doesn't give you right to own. If the landlord have given to your parents as a gift, you need supporting documents to claim.

Dear Mr. Sathya Prakash and Mr. Reddy ,

Thank  you for the prompt reply SIR.

But than does that mean that they can evacuate us as and when they please? 

We have no legally registered documents.

But have the same type written on a plain paper and signed by the landlord and my father just before he died. does that support in any manner.

secondly we have various other documents which states that they have given us this place to live and they had no objection.

For example :

1) NOC from the landlord to obtain a Ration Card 

2) NOC from the society  

And other Documents like

3) Voter ID Card,

4) PAN Card

5) INXCOME TAX File (for past few years) ETC......

Dear Rajesh,

These documents meant only to get ration card, voter ID etc. With these documents you cann't claim that you have right over possesioned land/house.

Dear Rajesh,

Today the following news posted in LCI. Please read. This will help you.

A tenant can be evicted if the landlord wants to start his own business even in a field in which he or she has no prior experience, the Supreme Court has ruled.

A bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and Asok Kumar Ganguly has held that if a landlord has a bonafide need of his rented premises for starting a new business and is able to prove his claim convincingly, he cannot be denied the privilege.

It is not necessary that a person to succeed in business must have prior experience in the particular field as even a rookie can succeed, the apex court said.

"We are of the opinion that 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 the 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. Hence, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have gone deeper into the question of bonafide need and not rejected it only on the ground that Giriraj (the petitioner's son) has no experience in footwear business," the court said.The bench made the observation while allowing the appeal of landlord and petitioner Ram Babu Agarwal challenging the rulings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The High Court, while interpreting Section 13(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, had concurred with the trial court's view that the owner, a cloth merchant, could not evict the tenant Jay Kishan Das since his plea that the premises were required to enable Giriraj start a footwear business appeared to be falseThe two courts below were of the view that since the owner had an experience only in running a cloth business, his plea for taking over the premises to start a footwear business did not appear to be a bonafide claim as neither he nor Giriraj had prior experience in the field.

Aggrieved Agarawal moved the apex court which rejected the reasoning of the two lower courts.

"For the reasons given above, we set aside the impugned judgements of the High Court and the trial court on the question of bonafide need and remand the matter to the trial court only to decide the issue of bonafide need afresh.

Parties may lead fresh evidence on their pleadings and the trial court shall decide the matter expeditiously thereafter.

"The appeal is allowed on the question of bonafide need only to the extent indicated above," the bench said in its order.

Dear Mr. Sathya Prakash,

Thank  you once again for above news. BUT sir our case is completely different the

1) The premises to be considered in our case is not a commercial property. So the landlord cannot claim to start a business here

2) We probably might not fall under category of tenant (but may be we might be considered as Ocupants)

3) And what if the landlord does not need the said property for self use but to sell it off ?