Supreme Court of India Judgements

47285Judgements hosted as on 12/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Rent

Rent

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(b) — Subletting, assignment or parting with possession — Whether involuntary transfer pursuant to statutory scheme of bank amalgamation attracts the provision — Original tenant-bank (HCB) amalgamated with another bank (PNB) pursuant to a Scheme framed by RBI and notified by the Central Government under S. 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Consequent thereto, HCB ceased to exist and all its rights, including tenancy rights in the demised premises, vested in PNB, which came into possession without the landlord’s written consent — Held, S. 14(1)(b) is of wide amplitude, covering subletting, assignment, and “any other mode” by which possession is parted with, and does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers — Once the twin ingredients — transfer of tenancy rights/possession, and absence of the landlord’s written consent — are satisfied, the provision is attracted irrespective of the reasons necessitating the transfer — Contention that a statutory amalgamation stands outside the mischief of the provision, rejected

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 671 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRITISH MOTOR CAR COMPANY (1939) LTD. Vs. M/S HINDUSTAN COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. SINCE HAS BEEN MERGED INTO PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND…

Rent

Landlord and Tenant — Eviction Suit — Pleading and Proof Satisfied — In this case, the plaint contained material facts of co-landlord status and eviction grounds — Evidence, including affidavits and documents like share certificates, was provided to support these pleaded facts, fulfilling both pleading and proof requirements.

May 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 496 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MARIETTA D’ SILVA Vs. RUDOLF CLOTHAN LACERDA AND OTHERS ( Before : Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of…

Constitution Rent

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 vs. Government Grants Act, 1895 — Relationship Governed by Grant — A lease originating from a Government grant, as governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895, is not subject to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — The incidence and enforceability of such a grant are governed solely by its tenor — The legal character of the grant does not derive from conventional landlord — tenant relationships but from the sovereign grant and its embedded conditions — Therefore, eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act are not maintainable for holdings originating from a Government grant.

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 406 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA Vs. SIR SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PVT. LTD ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

C P C Rent

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of pleadings — Permissibility while considering grant of leave to amend a plaint — Court can examine the merits/demerits of the case — Landlord filed suit for eviction based on bonafide need and other grounds — During appeal, landlord died — Legal heirs sought to amend plaint to incorporate their bonafide need, including that of appellant’s wife and son — Trial Court dismissed the suit — Appellate Bench allowed amendment, directing issue of bonafide requirement to be sent back to Trial Court for evidence — High Court, in writ petition, set aside amendment allowing fresh suit — Supreme Court held that High Court erred in interfering with the discretion of Appellate Bench under Article 227, as amendment was permissible.

Apr 27, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 416 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINAY RAGHUNATH DESHMUKH Vs. NATWARLAL SHAMJI GADA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J. K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

C P C Rent

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Subsequent events in litigation — Consideration by courts — Principle for considering subsequent events requires them to be brought promptly, consistently with procedure, with opportunity to oppose, and must have material bearing on relief — Landlord-tenant disputes require pragmatic approach, assessing bonafide need as of the date of filing suit, unless subsequent events materially change the ground of relief and overshadow the need altogether.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 376 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MARIA MARTINS Vs. NOEL ZUZARTE AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K.Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. ….of…

Rent

Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 — Section 46 — Revisional jurisdiction of High Court — Scope — High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the trial court — Revisional power is supervisory and limited to examining legality, correctness, or propriety of an order, not to act as a court of first appeal — Interference is warranted only for perversity, lack of evidence, or manifest illegality

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 348 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS Vs. M/S. MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS AND OTHERS (…

Rent State Laws

U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021 — Section 21(2) — Eviction proceedings — Landlord-tenant relationship established and affirmed up to Supreme Court — Tenant’s subsequent restoration application before Rent Authority, challenging sale deed validity, was an abuse of process and overreaching court orders — Rent Authority’s order setting aside eviction was void for lack of jurisdiction, as title dispute is purview of Civil Court, not Rent Authority — Judicial discipline and adherence to law require subordinate authorities to follow higher court orders

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 299 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH GOYAL Vs. M/S LAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Property Matters Rent

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 — Scope and Applicability — Overriding Effect over State Rent Control Legislations — Whether PP Act 1971 prevails over State Rent Control Acts (such as Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 or Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) regarding eviction from ‘Public Premises’ defined under Section 2(e) — Both PP Act 1971 and State Rent Control Acts are special laws; conflict resolved by legislative purpose and policy, which dictates that PP Act 1971 must prevail — A person in unauthorised occupation of public premises cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act. (Paras 2, 5.6.3, 5.7.1, 5.8.2, 13(i), 13(ii), 13(iv))

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1419 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. VITA ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. )…

Rent

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act, 1965) — Sections 12 and 18 — Eviction for non-payment of rent — Procedure under Section 12 in Appeal against Section 12(3) eviction order — Whether the entire summary procedure under Section 12 must be repeated before the Rent Control Appellate Authority when challenging an eviction order passed under Section 12(3) — Held: A fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Act is not mandatory when challenging an eviction order under Section 12(3) before the Appellate Authority — Rent Control Appellate Authority is not the Court of first instance and only tests the exercise of jurisdiction and power by the Rent Control Court; it is not required to re-determine the issue of default or outstanding amount of rent — Insisting on repeating the entire Section 12 procedure would be superfluous, unnecessary, contrary to the statute’s spirit, and lead to an absurd/unjust result, akin to turning the summary procedure on its head.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1340 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P.U. SIDHIQUE AND OTHERS Vs. ZAKARIYA ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.13901-13902 of 2025 (Arising…

You missed

C P C State Laws

State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Sections 29 & 30 — Auction sale of mortgaged property by Financial Corporation for recovery of dues — Judicial review of, scope — Borrowers persistently defaulting over eight years despite multiple opportunities, repayment schedules fixed by High Court, and statutory notices — Financial Corporation auctioning mortgaged property after affording repeated chances including a final 21-day matching offer, which borrowers ignored — Held, fairness required of a Financial Corporation cannot be carried to the extent of disabling it from recovering what is due to it; fairness is not a one-way street — Courts have no say in matters between the Corporation and its debtor except where there is (a) statutory violation, or (b) the Corporation has acted unfairly/unreasonably — Writ court/civil court does not sit as an appellate authority over commercial decisions of the Corporation — Absence of prior valuation report, by itself, held insufficient to vitiate auction where borrowers never objected to the basis of sale (BOS — balance outstanding as on date of possession/sale deed) and themselves sought to retain the property on the very same terms — Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court setting aside auction sale, reversed.

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw
POCSO

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 19(1) & 21 — “Knowledge that such an offence has been committed” — Meaning and scope — Held, not confined to direct/personal knowledge of commission of offence based on person’s own senses — Includes awareness founded on receipt of credible information regarding commission of offence punishable under the Act — Where such information is received directly from the victim, capable of communicating/reporting/informing, the same is deemed credible — Restrictive construction confining “knowledge” to direct, sensory knowledge would render sub-sections (5) & (6) of S. 19 and R. 4 of POCSO Rules, 2012 non-functional, and defeat the protective purpose of the Act — Person receiving report from victim not obliged to independently verify or investigate truth of allegation before reporting — Conducting a prior “verification exercise” to ascertain correctness of the child’s complaint, and reporting only if own assessment finds signs of assault, is impermissible and defeats the very purpose of the Act, since it may result in disappearance of evidence and delay —

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw
Rent

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(b) — Subletting, assignment or parting with possession — Whether involuntary transfer pursuant to statutory scheme of bank amalgamation attracts the provision — Original tenant-bank (HCB) amalgamated with another bank (PNB) pursuant to a Scheme framed by RBI and notified by the Central Government under S. 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Consequent thereto, HCB ceased to exist and all its rights, including tenancy rights in the demised premises, vested in PNB, which came into possession without the landlord’s written consent — Held, S. 14(1)(b) is of wide amplitude, covering subletting, assignment, and “any other mode” by which possession is parted with, and does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers — Once the twin ingredients — transfer of tenancy rights/possession, and absence of the landlord’s written consent — are satisfied, the provision is attracted irrespective of the reasons necessitating the transfer — Contention that a statutory amalgamation stands outside the mischief of the provision, rejected

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 48 — Proof of custom — Essential attributes and standard of proof — Custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, and continuous, and proved by clear and cogent evidence of long and uniform usage, ordinarily through testimony of persons familiar with its practice — Onus lies on the party asserting the custom — A custom cannot be held established on the solitary, unsupported testimony of one witness, particularly where such testimony is confined to the facts of the case rather than a general and consistent practice — Held, on facts, while the custom of a ghardamad acquiring rights in his father-in-law’s property stood proved, the specific claim that an uncle-in-law could similarly adopt a ghardamad was not established, being unsupported by consistent evidence —

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw