Supreme Court of India Judgements

47195 Judgements hosted as on 25/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Rent

Rent

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.

Apr 15, 2022 sclaw

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…

Rent

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.

Apr 11, 2022 sclaw

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…

Rent

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 .

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

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…

Rent

Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 – Sections 5(1), 7(2), 7(3) and 11 – Suit for possession – Expiry of lease term – Statutory tenant – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Section 11 of the Act has an overriding effect to the provisions of other laws. That being so, the jurisdiction indeed of a civil Court is impliedly barred from the field covered specifically by the provisions of the Act 1973 and that being the complete code determining the rights of a tenant/landlord to the exclusion of the other laws –

Feb 5, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUBHASH CHANDER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED. (BPCL) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay…

Rent

Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – Section 2(4)(ii)(b) – Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972 – Section 9 – Rent and eviction – While interpreting the expression “actual physical possession of land and building” would mean and require the tenant to be in actual physical possession – Rent and eviction – While interpreting the expression “actual physical possession of land and building” would mean and require the tenant to be in actual physical possession

Nov 13, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER — Appellant Vs. THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Rent

High Court in its revisional jurisdiction after taking into consideration the material on record, arrived to the conclusion that the delay of 175 days was bona fide and has been satisfactorily explained and allowed the application seeking condonation of delay of 175 days. In sequel thereof, the ex-parte decree was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Rent Controller to hear the parties on merits.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRS. AMBIKA MURALI — Appellant Vs. TMT. VALLIAMMAL AND ANOTHER AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…

You missed

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition and Development — Public Purpose De-reservation — Subject land originally earmarked for High School was de-reserved by competent authority due to insufficient area; subsequent sale to private individuals was upheld by civil courts and its finality was not challenged.

Apr 25, 2026 sclaw
Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c), 19 — Criminal Contempt — Scandalising the court — An advocate’s public allegations against a sitting judge, made via a press conference and repeated in court applications, can constitute criminal contempt by scandalising the court, lowering its authority, and interfering with judicial proceedings — Such conduct is unbecoming of a legal professional and undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

Apr 25, 2026 sclaw
Service

Recruitment Rules and Advertisement — Essential Qualifications — Work Experience — In absence of a specific rule or advertisement provision, a recruiting agency cannot relax essential eligibility criteria by treating a higher qualification as a replacement for a mandatory essential qualification — A preference for a higher qualification operates only for eligible and meritorious candidates and does not override or supplant the primary requirement of essential eligibility.

Apr 25, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 10 — Relief of back wages and regularisation — Employee illegally terminated, ordered reinstatement with back wages by Labour Commissioner and Industrial Court — Employer challenged, but interim order for back wages deposit was made and employee reinstated as daily wager — Employee sought regularisation after completing 180 days of service, granted by Industrial Court from the date of 180 days completion as per settlement clause — Employer failed to comply timely, only regularising employee on a sanctioned post after many years, imposing new conditions contrary to prior orders — Supreme Court held that employer cannot impose new conditions limiting regularisation contrary to earlier unchallenged orders and settlement terms, and reversed High Court’s decision setting aside back wages order.

Apr 25, 2026 sclaw