Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960

The landlord filed two eviction suits seeking possession of a non‑residential building, claiming he needed the premises to start a medicine shop and to carry out reconstruction, and that he had no other suitable accommodation. The tenant argued that the landlord already possessed a major portion of the building (vacate…

The appellant, Harshavardhan Chokkani, had a lease from the original landlady to occupy a shop and was permitted to run a partnership business. After the landlady sold the premises, she attorned the tenancy of the partnership firm, Brij Mohan Chokkani & Sons, to the purchasers, who thereafter received rent from the fir…

The respondents, co‑owners of two non‑residential shops, were already occupying one shop and sought eviction of the appellant tenant from the other shop under s.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need for a jewellery business. The Rent Contro…

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of clause (b) of Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which exempted all buildings constructed on or after 26 August 1957 from the Act's rent‑control provisions. Petitioners argued that after more than two decades the e…

The landlady filed three eviction petitions against the tenant under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, alleging wilful default in rent and unauthorised sub‑letting. The tenant contended that, because an interlocutory application under Section 11 was pending, she was justified in…

The tenant filed three applications before the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking rent‑deposit, fixation of standard rent and relief from inconvenience. While these applications were pending, the State Government issued a notification (effective 26 Oct 1983) exempting building…

The appellant, Modern Hotel, leased a commercial premises for thirty years starting 9 September 1969 and paid an advance of Rs 6,500, of which Rs 1,500 was to be adjusted against rent and the balance of Rs 5,000 was to be refunded after the lease expired. The landlord filed an eviction suit in October 1973 alleging ren…

The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by landlady Fatima Bee against the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had set aside earlier findings that she required the non‑residential premises bona fide for her bangle‑manufacturing business and that the tenants' claim of permanent tenancy was mala fide. The lower Rent Contro…

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 32(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control (Amendment) Act, 2005 operates prospectively or retrospectively and how it affects eviction suits pending when the amendment came into force. It also considered the effect of the 1983 Government Order (G.…

The Supreme Court examined several appeals concerning eviction petitions under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The central issue was the interpretation of "wilful default" in the proviso to section 10(2)(i) and its Explanation, which states that a default is wilful if it continues after a l…

The appellant, a tenant of a hotel premises since 1953, allowed the second respondent to run the hotel from August 1969. The landlord (first respondent) terminated the tenancy, alleging sub‑letting and sought eviction under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The cen…

Vallampati Kalavathi, the landlady, filed an eviction suit against tenant Haji Ismail under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, alleging non‑payment of rent and a bona‑fide requirement to house her children for higher education. The Rent Controller ordered eviction o…

The respondent, Ballabh Vyas, claimed ownership of a small shop (Mulgi) based on a registered sale deed dated 27 June 1985 and sought eviction of the appellants, who were tenants succeeding the original lessee Balraj. The appellants denied the respondent’s title, asserting that Balraj had purchased the property for Rs.…

Boddu Narayanamma, the landlady, sought eviction of Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. and its partners who occupied a building in Rajahmundry under a composite lease containing both residential and non‑residential portions. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, holding the landlord's requirement was not bona fide and…

The Supreme Court considered three appeals challenging house‑tax assessments of buildings that were subject to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, but for which no standard rent had been fixed. The revenue argued that the landlord could reasonably expect to receive the contractual rent and that this should determine the …

The respondents, a father and son, filed an eviction petition under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for a shop‑room to start a readymade‑garments business. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, a decision affirmed by th…

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (as amended in 1988), which excludes premises with a monthly rent exceeding Rs 3,500 from the Act’s protection. The appellants argued that the classification was arbitrary, violated Article 14, and was retrospecti…

The appellant, Rafat Ali, leased premises from the respondents, Sugni Bai and heirs, who later sought eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 on three grounds: rent default, waste causing damage, and nuisance. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found…

General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd., the original tenant of a premises in Secunderabad, merged with National Ekco Radio and Engineering Co. Ltd. under a court‑sanctioned scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The landlord, M.A. Khader, sought eviction on the grounds that the amalg…

The appellant, a tenant since 1982, faced an eviction petition filed by the landlady under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, on the grounds of her bonafide need for the premises and alleged rent default. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the eviction,…

The appellant, a sub‑tenant, was originally paying rent to the respondent, a tenant, but after receiving an eviction notice from the head lessor (title paramount) he attorned to the head lessor and began paying rent to him, ceasing payments to the respondent. The respondent filed eviction proceedings under the Andhra P…

The tenant defaulted on rent for September‑November 1988 and, after receiving a notice, paid Rs.375 on December 7 and sent a bank draft of Rs.1125 covering the entire arrears on December 12, which the landlord did not encash and later deposited before the Rent Controller. The landlord filed an eviction petition under S…

The respondents bought a premises that the appellant was occupying as a tenant. The appellant claimed an oral agreement with the previous owners to purchase the property, having paid Rs.5,000 as earnest money, and therefore refused to pay rent from December 1977 to May 1978. The respondents sued for eviction, and the l…

The landlord sought possession of two shop premises to demolish and reconstruct them under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. After the landlord completed the work, he offered the rebuilt premises back to the tenants at a higher rent, but the tenants filed execution…

The respondent landlord sought eviction of the appellant tenant under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 on three grounds, including a bona‑fide requirement for personal occupation of the non‑residential premises. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found the landlord’…

The Vijayawada Municipal Council originally levied property tax under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) District Municipalities Act, 1920. After the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 repealed the old Act, the State Government issued several General Orders directing the council to levy tax under the new Act, later…

The petitioners, tenants of a commercial premises, challenged the landlord's suit for possession under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949, arguing that the landlord already owned other premises in the same building, which should bar his claim of bonafide requirement. The Supreme Court examine…

The appeal arose under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, where the appellant, M. Bhaskar, was alleged to have wilfully defaulted on rent from June to October 1990. The landlord, J. Venkataramana Naidu, was represented by his brother‑in‑law A. Narayanaswamy Naidu. The appellant c…

The appellant, a tenant, occupied a ground‑floor unit of a building in Secunderabad under a lease dated 1967. The landlord, a co‑owner, sought eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide requirement to use the premises for his o…

The landlord K. Sudarshana Rao filed an eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need for a non‑residential building to store fire‑clay. The tenant D. DevaJi had agreed to a rent increase, but the landlord demanded a…

The respondent, who owned building No.1‑1‑249 and used it for residence and business, purchased the adjoining building No.1‑1‑250 where the appellant was already operating a shop and residing. The respondent sought eviction of the appellant under Section 10(3)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction…