Category: Rent

Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – Section 13(6) – Striking off defence – Defence was struck off on non-deposit/payment of the balance amount of GST, which is now deposited – same deposited – striking off the defence of the appellant is quashed and the appellant is permitted to defend the eviction suit/suit

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. FASHION WORLD — Appellant Vs. BANSHIDHAR MULTI BUILDERS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

HELD A bare perusal of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act would reveal that if a landlord transfers the property leased out or any part of it, the transferee, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights of the landlord. Landlord by statement able to establish requirement of personal occupation purpose is genuine and that it is not only a ruse for evicting the appellants.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GOPI @ GOVERDHANNATH (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SRI BALLABH VYAS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable which is not interdicted by the applicability of the Act to the area in question. The Act is applicable to the area in question from the date the notification came into force and it does not bar the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such civil suit.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKARLAL NADANI — Appellant Vs. SOHANLAL JAIN — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 2816 of…

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Section 25B(8) – HELD the mere existence of the other properties which are, in fact, denied by the appellant would not enure to the benefit of the respondent in the absence of any pleadings and supporting material before the learned Rent Controller to the effect that they are reasonably suitable for accommodation. embargo under the Enemy Property Act would not be made applicable to the properties in question.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABID-UL-ISLAM — Appellant Vs. INDER SAIN DUA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 9444…

Held the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of the decree. The doctrine of merger does not have the effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passed by the superior forum at a latter date. (2005) 1 SCC 705 reiterated .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEERA TRADERS — Appellant Vs. KAMLA JAIN — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). 5996-5997…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.