Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Rent

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

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw