- D. Sasi Kumar Vs. Soundararajan-23/09/2019 - If as on the date of filing the petition the requirement subsists and it is proved, the same would be sufficient irrespective of the time-lapse in the judicial process coming to an end.
- Flora Elias Nahoum & Ors. Vs. Idrish Ali Laskar [SC 2018 JANUARY] - KEYWORDS:- RENT CONTROL-eviction suit- subletting- DATE :-January 25, 2018- If one ground of eviction is held made out against the tenant, that ground is sufficient
- Himangni Enterprises Vs. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia[2017 SC] - Arbitration and Conciliation- The Delhi Rent Act, which deals with the cases relating to rent and eviction of the premises, is a special Act. Though
- Rai Brij Raj Krishna and Another Versus Messrs. S. K. Shaw and Brothers [SC 1951 FEB] - Keywords: Rent Control-Jurisdiction The Act has entrusted the Controller with a ‘jurisdiction, which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether there is non-payment of rent or
- Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr-10/12/2019 - Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011-State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act. We, therefore, declare Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void and of no effect.
- Recovery of the possession under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 - Law Library West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act-1997 6. Protection of tenant against eviction – (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law
- Smt. Syed Sughra Zaidi Vs. Laeeq Ahmad (D) through LRS. & Ors [SC 2017 December] - KEYWORDS:- EVICTION SUIT- TENANCY-registered rent agreement-renewal of lease deed The courts below did not properly appreciate that after service of eviction notice on 09.04.1979 continuance
- Sub-tenancy under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 26. Creation and termination of sub-tenancy to be notified. – (1) Where after the commencement of this Act, any
- Tenanted premises can be used for another purpose than agreed in absence of negative covenant-SC - SEPTEMBER 18, 2018: The petition for eviction filed by the Landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The judgment of the Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad and in revision by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Aggrieved thereby the landlord filed appeal befote the Supreme Court . Supreme Court held while dismissing the appeal for eviction, in RAVI CHAND MANGLA Versus DIMPAL SOLANIA & ORS. that "The main point urged on behalf of the Appellant is that the premises which was let out for saw mill is now being utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of grills which amount to change of user. Submissions were made before us by both sides on the interpretation of terms of the rent agreement. On a perusal of the agreement, we are convinced that there is no restriction placed on the Respondents-tenant to run business only relating to the saw mill. The tenant was given the liberty to carry on any other business as well. In the absence of any negative covenant the user does not amount to user for the purpose other than for which the premises was leased. A premises taken on rent for ‘sugarcane crushing’ was used for cloth business in which case the landlord’s contention that there was change of user was rejected.
- The legal position of sub-tenant under Indian Law - In the case of Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Delhi vs. S. B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 SC 933,Apex Court held that when eviction
- What is the meaning of word “himself” - Once the families of Jagdish Kishore and Ram Kishore are considered as included in the expression “himself”, the accommodation with the petitioner is wholly insufficient.