Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Rent

Rent

Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 21(1)(a) – Release of Shop – Mere receipt of notice having been sent under certificate of posting, in itself, may not be sufficient proof of service, but if the same is coupled with other facts and circumstances which go to show that the party had notice, the same could be held to be sufficient service on the party.

Apr 26, 2020 sclaw

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. ASIF NASEER — Appellant Vs. WEST WATCH COMPANY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and Vineet Saran,…

Rent

Landlord and Tenant — Eviction — Denial of relationship — Original owner inducted tenant — Owner made family settlement in favour of his son with regard to demised premises, thus son of landlord acquired title — Such confernment/settlement to title cannot be questioned by tenant — Eviction petition by son of original landlord on  his  personal necessity upheld.

Apr 2, 2020 sclaw

2020(1) Indian Civil Cases 761 (S.C.) SUPREME  COURT  OF INDIA Before :– R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA & HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 6572 of 2010 / Decided on 15/11/2019…

Rent

Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 HELD ‘actual physical possession of land and building’ would mean and require the tenant to be in actual physical possession. The provisions would not be applicable if the tenant is not in actual physical possession and has given the premises on lease or licence basis to a third party.

Jan 28, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. R. CHANDRAMOULEESWARAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Rent

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1965 – Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) – Eviction – Sub-letting – A bare reading of sub-para (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the said Act leaves no manner of doubt that the cause arises upon the tenant transferring his rights under a lease and sub-lets the entire building “or any portion thereof”, if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so. Thus, sub-letting of any part of the tenanted premises gives right to eviction from the whole premises

Jan 13, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. LUBNA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BEEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. ) Civil…

Rent

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a)(b) and 10(2)(iii) – Eviction – Subletting – There is no genuine partnership between respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 – Respondent no.1 has come out with a case of partnership only to get out from the allegation of subletting – The exclusive possession of the suit premises is with respondent no.2. Respondent

Jan 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A.MAHALAKSHMI — Appellant Vs. BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil…

Rent

Landlord’s Derivative Title Has To Be Established When It Is Challenged By Tenant: SC  HELD the landlord is not required to prove his title in the subject property as in a title-suit, but when his/her derivative title is challenged, the same has to be established in some form.

Dec 23, 2019 sclaw

Landlord’s Derivative Title Has To Be Established When It Is Challenged By Tenant: SC   LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 21 Dec 2019 2:14 PM “When the landlord’s derivative title is challenged, the…

Rent

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Sections 13-B and 18-A – Constitutional validity of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Right of Non-Resident Indians to initiate eviction under the summary procedure provided in Section 18-A of the Rent Act is not an unfettered and absolute right – Held such amendment, Constitutional

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAM KRISHAN GROVER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, L. Nageswara Rao…

Rent

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Sections 20(4) and 21(1)(a) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 8 and 109 – Release of property – Bonafide occupation – when the appellant has established that he is the owner of the property and the same is required for his bonafide occupation, the release of the premises in any event, is required to be made.

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANTOSH CHATURVEDI — Appellant Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw