Supreme Court of India Judgements

47250 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Rent

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…

Rent

“Court-Approved Agreement Reached in Eviction Case Involving Religious Endowment Property” Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Section 78 – Order of Ejectment – The tenants were declared as encroachers under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the High Court ordered them to vacate the premises – The tenants challenged the order in the before this Court – Amicable Resolution

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. BALASUBRAMANI ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent (…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction — High Court’s power under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary, subject to self-imposed restrictions — Ordinarily, it should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person, such as pursuing remedies under statutory frameworks like the CrPC or BNSS, unless specific exceptions apply.

May 12, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Applicability of Order 22 of CPC to death of parties — Section 13(7) made Order 22 of CPC applicable to death of complainant or opposite party, allowing substitution of legal heirs if the right to sue survives — This procedural rule must be harmoniously construed with substantive law like Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, which governs survivability of causes of action

May 12, 2026 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Recruitment Rules — Eligibility Criteria — Date of Possession of Qualification — For recruitment to the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer, the essential educational qualification must be possessed by the candidate on the date of submission of the application, not at a later stage like the interview or examination date.

May 12, 2026 sclaw
Service

Public Administration and Service Rules — Interpretation of merger of departments and promotion rules — The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment that questioned a government order (G.O.) granting a notional promotion to an employee — The Court found that the original G.O — was issued in compliance with prior High Court orders and a merger policy that was not challenged by any party, thus validating the promotion and subsequent advancements.

May 12, 2026 sclaw