Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Rent and Eviction

Saturday, January 21, 2012
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Evcition — The court cannot direct the landlord to do a particular business or imagine that he could profitably do a particular business rather than the business he proposes to start — It is for the landlord to decide which business he wants to do — The Court cannot advise him.

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Landlord’s requirement need not be a dire necessity.  

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Comparative hardship — Fact that a person has the capacity to purchase the property cannot be the sole ground against him while deciding the question of comparative hardship.

 
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Order passed by the Rent Controller determining the provisional rent in an eviction petition based on the ground of default is an interlocutory order — East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(2)(i) Proviso.  

 
Friday, July 02, 2010
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Eviction on the ground of bona fide need — Held, the landlord is the best Judge of his need, however, it should be real, genuine and the need may not be a pretext to evict the tenant only for increasing the rent.

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Eviction on the ground of bona fide need — Held, an incident too remote from the date of institution of suit may not be relevant for consideration at all.

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Eviction on the ground of bona fide need — Held, need of the landlord is to be examined as per the circumstances prevailing on the date of the institution of the case.

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Eviction on the ground of bona fide need — The suit premises was earlier on rent with Dental Surgeon Dr. Sharma from 1970 to 1978 who vacated it considering the need of the landlord — After eviction of Dr. Sharma, it was given on rent to the appellant at a monthly rent of Rs.150/-p.m. — The rent was enhanced to the tune of Rs.400/-p.m. in 1990, to Rs.500/- p.m. in 1991 and further enhanced to Rs.700/-p.m. on 1.3.1995 — There had been no increase in rent of the suit premises after 1995 — Question arose — Whether in such circumstances, eviction petition filed by the landlord against the appellant-tenant can be allowed? — Held, undoubtedly after evicting Dr. Sharma from the suit premises, the landlord has not started his business in the said premises but the incidence which occurred several decades ago cannot be relevant to determine the actual controversy for the reason that need of the landlord is to be examined as per the circumstances prevailing on the date of the institution of the case — First Appellate Court erred in drawing the inference that since the landlord did not occupy the premises after being vacated by Dr. Sharma, Dentist, therefore, need of the landlord may not be bona fide and it might be a pretext for increasing the rent or to evict the tenant.

 
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Eviction — Personal bonafide necessity — In a case of bona fide requirement it is necessary to establish that the landlord needs the premises and the need subsists till a decree is passed in his favour — In a case where such need is available at the time of the filing of the petition but becomes extinct by the time the matter attains finality in appeal for revision no decree will be justified — For that purpose the Court should take all the subsequent events into consideration and mould the relief accordingly — Hasmat Rai Vs. Raghunath Prasad (1981 (3) SCC 103) and Baba Kashinath Bhinge Vs. Samast LingayatGavali (1994 Supp (3) SCC 698) relied.

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Eviction — Personal bonafide necessity — Whether the proceedings instituted by the deceased-owners of the demised property could be continued by the legal heirs left behind by them? — Held, no — Requirement pleaded in the eviction petition by the original petitioners was their own personal requirement and not the requirement of the members of their family whether dependant or otherwise.

 
Monday, May 12, 2008
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Premises let for non-residential purposes — Whether landlord has a right to seek eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement? — Held, yes — Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is violative of equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution insofar as it differentiates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes in the matter of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord and restricts the landlord’s right only to the residential premises — Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e) — Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14.

 
Monday, August 07, 2006
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Eviction petition filed by second wife on the ground of sub-letting and default — Maintainability — Second marriage took place during the subsistence of the first marriage — Second marriage declared void — However, second wife inducted appellants as tenant in property of her husband — Death of husband — Held, an eviction proceeding could be maintained by second wife against the appellants-tenant, even if she was not found entitled to inherit the properties of her deceased husband — Appellants-tenant cannot deny the title of second wife — Section 116 of the Evidence Act is clearly applicable — Evidence Act, S.116.  

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting and default — Held, in an eviction petition filed on the ground of sub-letting and default, the court needs to decide whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists and not the question of title to the properties in question, which may be incidentally gone into, but cannot be decided finally in the eviction proceeding.

 
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — A “landlord” under the Rent Act, held, can maintain a suit for eviction even without being the owner of the premises.

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent and Eviction — Bona fide personal need — The question as to the existence of bona fide personal need, held, is a pure question of fact.   

 
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Rent and Eviction

Rent Control and Eviction — Change of user — When the lease is granted for the purpose of a trade, in the absence of any covenant in the contact between the parties prohibiting a user different from the particular one mentioned in the lease deed, the tenant, held, would be entitled to carry on any trade in the premises, consistent with the location and the nature of the premises — Merely because a tenant who has taken a building for the purpose of running a trade, alters the commodity in which he was trading when he took the building on lease or trades in other commodities also, he could not he held to be using the premises for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was let — The purpose has to be understood, as the purpose of trade and in the absence of a covenant barring the using of it for any other trade, it will be open to the tenant to use the premises for expanding his trade or even for taking up other lines of trade as befits a prudent trader. 

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent Control and Eviction — Eviction — Change of user — Court must see whether there has been such a change of user of the premises as to make it alien to the purpose for which the building was let and deny eviction when the basic activity remains the same and there is only a variation in the manner or mode of carrying on of that activity.

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent Control and Eviction — Change of user — Merely because a shop let out for trade in shoes and other leather goods, is used by the tenant also for the purpose of trading in readymade garments, it could not be held to be a user by the tenant of the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was leased.

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent Control and Eviction — Impairment of value and utility — Held, though impairment in question need not be permanent, it must really be a material impairment in value or utility of building — Structural alteration, however slight, should be involved to attract eviction on ground of impairing of value and utility of the building.

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent Control and Eviction — Mere fixing of sign boards outside the shop by taking support from the parapet wall, held, cannot be considered to be an act of waste which is likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building.

 
Rent and Eviction

Rent Control and Eviction — Impairment of value and utility — Fixing of racks inside the premises even by drilling holes in the walls or beams, held, cannot be said to be acts which are themselves acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building.

 
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Rent and Eviction

Rent Control and Eviction — Bonafide requirement of landlord — Suit seeking eviction of the respondent — Tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement decreed by the trial Court — Decree was upheld in appeal — Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-tenant filed a second appeal — During pendency of the second appeal, the landlord died — Appellant therein moved an application for being brought on record  in place of late landlord submitting that the suit property was donated to it by the late landlord — High Court dismissed the application of the appellant-donee on the ground that the suit having been filed on the ground of reasonable  requirement of the landlord for his own occupation, the cause of action could not survive to the appellant-donee — Held, question of abatement would arise only when there is no legal representative — Appellant donee certainly falls within the definition of “legal representative” — Before a decree under appeal may be reversed someone shall have to heard in support of the decree — Hence, whether the decree under appeal can be sustained or not in view of the subsequent event, would be a question to be examined by the High Court but only after the applicant before it was permitted to be brought on record — Appeal allowed.

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.