Category: 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

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 (…

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 – Ejectment – Landlords and the tenant of a bungalow in Delhi – Dispute is about the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises – The High Court of Delhi remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for adjudication under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 – The tenant is occupying the demised premises at a monthly rental of Rs.3,328/- since 1972 – Settlement Terms

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SWAMI GOVERDHAN RANGACHARIJI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. A.J. PRINTERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Petition…

Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 – Section 16(1)(i) – When landlord may recover possession – The Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated 4th August 2015, set aside the eviction decrees passed against the tenants in two separate suits filed by the landlords – this Court set aside the eviction decrees and remanded the cases back to the trial court for fresh consideration

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAITULLA ISMAIL SHAIKH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KHATIJA ISMAIL PANHALKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi,…

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 – Declaration of title – Permanent injunction – Quit notice – Validity of – Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – After purchase of second schedule property from original owner, defendant rightly issued quit notice under Section 106 of Act 1882 to plaintiff

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. RAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Sections 7(1) and 7(2) – Non-payment of arrears of rent – Extension of time – While the Limitation Act may be generally applicable to the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, the restricted proviso under Section 7 of the said Act, providing a time period beyond which no extension can be granted, has to be applicable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEBASISH PAUL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMAL BORAL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 itself has been abrogated in the year 2001, with a new statute coming into force, i.e. The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, which does not create any similar bar – Decree of eviction favour of the appellant-landlord – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVI KHANDELWAL — Appellant Vs. M/S. TALUKA STORES — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Sections 14(1)(e) and 25-B(8) – Eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement – appellant-landlord is said to have acquired title to the property in question on being transferred by her brother-in-law; and has sought eviction of the respective tenants from suit premises on the ground that the premises were required bona fide by her for use and occupation of herself and the other members of her joint family – Order passed by the Rent Controller restored.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUSUM LATA SHARMA — Appellant Vs. ARVIND SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.3111 of…

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 30 -if landlord serves notice of demand against the higher rate and expresses his willingness to accept the rent, the tenant after receipt of notice is under an obligation to tender the rent at least at the rate admitted to him to the landlord and has got no right to straight away deposit the same under Section 30(1) of the Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. SHAMIM AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 – Section 13(1)(e) and 15(1) – Unless the contract itself permits subletting, it shall not be lawful, after coming into operation of the Act of 1947, for a tenant to sublet the premises let out to him or to assign or transfer in any manner his interest therein with an exception the State Government may permit so by gazette notification.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.