Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Bombay Rent Act, 1947

5 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M/S. S.F. ENGINEERversusMETAL BOX INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

2014 INSC 22328 March 2014Dismissed

The landlord (Mis. S.F. Engineer) sought eviction of its tenant Metal Box India Ltd. and the tenant's former employee under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act, alleging unlawful sub‑letting. The trial and appellate courts held that the tenant had not part‑ed with legal possession nor received any monetary consider

VIDYA DROLIA & ORS.versusDURGA TRADING CORPORATION

2019 INSC 29028 February 2019Matter referred to larger bench

The parties entered into a ten‑year tenancy agreement for godowns that contained an arbitration clause. When the lease expired, the landlord sought possession and invoked the arbitration clause, appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The tenant appealed, arguing that th

KUSUM HARILAL SONIversusCHANDRLKA NANDLAL MEHTA AND ANR.

2016 INSC 31012 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landlord, obtained an eviction order and a decree for monthly compensation against the tenant (respondent No.1) under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. After possession was handed over, the tenant failed to pay the compensation and purportedly transferred the flat to her daughter (respondent

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAIversusM/S BYRAMJEE JEEJEEBHOY PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2011 INSC 2848 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai, as landlord, sued M/s Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. (tenant) and its sub‑tenant Wadi Sunder Cotton Press Co. for eviction on the ground of unlawful sub‑letting under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The trial court and the High Court held that the sub‑lease breached the lease deed

V. SUMATIBEN MAGANLAL MANANI (DEAD) BY L.R.versusUTTAMCHAND KASHIPRASAD SHAH AND ANR.

2011 INSC 4474 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a landlady, leased a shop to the tenant (defendant No.1) for a grocery business. The tenant allegedly sublet the premises to a milk vendor (defendant No.2) and failed to use the shop for its intended purpose for more than six months before the suit, as shown by electricity bills, a Court Commissioner’s r

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search