Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
8 judgments · newest first · showing 1–8
The suit was filed by the brother, Harishchandra Gupta, seeking possession of a house on the basis that he held a permanent lease granted by the Naib Tehsildar on 30‑Nov‑1979. The sister, Kausalya Bai, contended that she was a licensee and later claimed title by adverse possession, while also …
The landlord filed an eviction suit in 1985 against the tenant of a shop in Risod, before the city was declared a municipality. In 1989 Risod was notified as a municipality, bringing the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 into force for the premises. The …
The landlord applied to the Rent Controller under Section 13(3)(ii),(iii) and (iv) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, seeking eviction on grounds of habitual rent default, sub‑letting and bona‑fide personal need. The Controller found the tenant guilty …
The appellant, a monthly tenant since 1961, was ordered by a civil court to deposit his rent with the court in installments pending the settlement of a dispute with a plaintiff. The landlord alleged that the tenant was in arrears of rent for 93 months amounting to Rs. 5,766 and that he was a …
The appellants, a partnership firm, were tenants of a shop in Madras and allegedly sublet the premises to another partnership firm, M/s. Adeshwar Glass Mart, without the landlord's consent. The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent …
The Supreme Court considered two civil appeals where landlords sought to declare leases void because they were entered into without complying with clause 22 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Court held that such a lease, although inconsistent with …
The landlord filed an eviction application under Clause 13(3)(vi) and (vii) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 against the partnership firm M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal. The firm contended that the application was not maintainable because the partners were …
The appellant, a former government telephone employee, had taken a house on lease in 1954 and continued to occupy it after retirement in 1967. Respondent S.P. Pathak applied to the House Allotment Officer for possession, alleging the appellant occupied the premises in violation of Clause 22(2) of …
