Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Rent

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…

Rent

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) – Bonafide requirement – Nature of the requirement as stated by the landlord would be for running a garment shop .Mere non ­production of the approved plan or the documents to indicate financial capacity at this juncture cannot be held fatal in the instant facts

Sep 30, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH D. SASI KUMAR — Appellant Vs. SOUNDARARAJAN — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 7546-7547 of…

Rent

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Sections 15(1) and 15(7) – Payment of rent Amount of rent payable for the demised premises may be a factor which cannot be brushed aside, but the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, do not suggest any negligence, defiance or contumacious non ­payment of the amount payable to the landlord to warrant the taking of that “exceptional step” which is bound to render the tenant defenceless in his contest against the respondents­landlord.

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINA NATH (D ) BY LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH CHAND SAINI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R.…

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