Tag: Rent Control Digest

Metalware and Co.Vs Bansilal Sarma and others-4/5/1979

If the Rent Controller has to be satisfied about the bona fide requirement of the landlord which must mean genuineness of his claim in that behalf the Rent Controller will have to take into account all the surrounding circumstances including not merely the factors of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to under take the project and steps taken by him in that regard but also the existing condition of the building, its age and situation and possibility or otherwise of its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction.

Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar and anr Vs Smt. Rudravva and Ors-27/08/2001

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 111—Lease—Determination—Fixed term contractual lessee—Non obstante clause in Rent Act—Eviction sought on bona fide need of lessor as a ground for eviction under the Rent Act—Held: After enforcement of Rent Act a fixed term contractual lessee, during subsistence of lease, be evicted only on grounds of eviction provided in the Rent Act and that too only if such grounds have been provided as one of the grounds for forfeiture of lease rights in the lease deed.

Iqbal Singh Narang and Others Vs Veeran Narang-30/11/2011

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195 and 340—Perjury—Making of false statement in court of Rent Controller—Though Rent Controller discharges quasi-judicial functions, he is not a Court, as understood in conventional sense and he cannot make complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C.—Complaint could be made by a private party in the proceedings—Rent Controller, being a creature of Statute, has to act within four corners of Statute and could exercise only such powers as had been vested in him by Statute—No reason to quash proceedings.

Asgar & Ors. Vs. Mohan Varma & Ors-05/02/2019

An issue which the appellants might and ought to have asserted in the earlier round of proceedings is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue. The High Court was, in this view of the matter, entirely justified in coming to the conclusion that the failure of the appellants to raise a claim would result in the application of the principle of constructive res judicata both having regard to the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1958 and to the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC.