Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
131 judgments · newest first · showing 1–131
British Motor Car Company (1939) Ltd., the landlord, leased premises to Hindustan Commercial Bank (HCB). In 1986 HCB was amalgamated into Punjab National Bank (PNB) under a scheme framed by the RBI pursuant to Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, causing HCB to cease to exist and its …
The appellant, a widowed landlord, filed eviction petitions under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for the premises to accommodate her joint family. The Rent Controller accepted the petition and ordered eviction, but the Delhi High Court reversed the order, alleging …
The original landlord filed an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, but after the tenant denied the landlord‑tenant relationship, the landlord failed to produce evidence and the Rent Controller dismissed the petition without a finding on merits. After the landlord's death, his …
Asha Rani Gupta, the plaintiff‑lessor, filed an eviction suit against Sri Vineet Kumar, the defendant‑lessee, for non‑payment of rent and damages. The trial court struck off the defendant’s defence under Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC for failing to deposit the admitted rent, a decision affirmed by the …
The landlord filed an eviction petition under s.14(1)(e) read with s.25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant sought leave to defend under s.25B(5); the Rent Controller denied the application, finding the landlord's bona‑fide need satisfied and the tenant's contentions unsubstantiated. …
M/s Puri Investments, the landlord, filed an eviction suit under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that the tenant, M/s Young Friends & Co., had sub-let portions of the shop to three medical practitioners without the landlord's consent. The Rent Controller dismissed the …
The appellant, a non‑resident Indian (NRI), purchased a building in Punjab that was already occupied by a tenant who had been inducted by the previous owner. After returning to India, the appellant sought eviction of the tenant under Section 13‑B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. …
The landlord filed eviction suits under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 alleging non‑payment of rent arrears for two shops. The tenants filed applications under Section 7(2) of the Act seeking determination of the disputed rent and deposited the arrears they admitted. The trial court …
The appeal concerned a dispute under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 where the landlord sought eviction of the tenants and the Rent Controller, invoking Section 15(7), struck out the tenants' defence in the pending eviction petition. The tenants argued that they had paid all arrears and even …
The appeal arose from tenants of a non‑residential shop challenging an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and seeking to have the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyawati Sharma case referred to a larger bench. The petitioners contended that the Satyawati Sharma …
The New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) enacted the 2009 Determination of Annual Rent Bye‑laws, introducing a Unit Area Method (UAM) for fixing rateable value, replacing the earlier method based on annual rent under Section 63 of the NDMC Act, 1994. A batch of writ petitions filed by property owners …
The landlord Atma Ram Properties sued its tenant Oriental Insurance for possession, claiming that a huge property tax payable under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 could be treated as arrears of rent, raising the total rent above Rs.3,500 per month and thereby removing the tenant’s …
The owner of a shop in Delhi filed an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that the tenant had sub-let the premises to a third person who was in exclusive possession and that the tenant was in arrears of rent. The tenant contended that the third person was merely an …
The appellants, tenants of a shop, challenged an eviction petition filed by the landlord (respondent No.1) under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The landlord claimed ownership through an adoption deed executed 17 years after the death of the original owner and sought eviction …
The landlord, Munshi Lal, sought eviction of his tenant, Hakim Rai (deceased) and his successors, alleging that the tenant had sub-let a Kiraria shop to his son‑in‑law Raj Kumar under a partnership deed without the landlord's written consent. The Rent Controller held the partnership to be a ruse and …
The tenant Bhupinder Singh Bawa occupied a two‑room premises in New Delhi under a rent deed dated 20 July 1989. The landlord Asha Devi, who acquired the property in 2002, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for her …
The Supreme Court examined the method of fixing the rateable value of lands and buildings under Section 63 of the New Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. The appellant, State Trading Corporation, argued that the High Court erred by relying on Bye‑law 12 of the old Punjab Municipal Act to assess …
The Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The issue was whether the High …
The appellants, tenants of a shop in Delhi, were ordered by the Rent Controller to pay arrears and future rent under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. They delayed payment of the future rent, prompting the landlords to invoke Section 15(7) to have the tenants' defence in the …
The landlords (Jai Singh and others) filed an eviction suit under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that the Delhi Transport Corporation (OTC) had sublet the premises to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) without written consent. The Additional Rent Controller (ARC) …
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant applied for leave to contest the eviction after an eight‑day delay, which the Additional Rent Controller rejected, leading to an eviction order. The tenant later sought to set aside that …
The Supreme Court examined whether a tenant who tendered rent by money order, which the landlord refused to accept, was required to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court held that the word "may" in Section 27 is to be read as …
The landlord filed an eviction suit alleging non‑payment of rent and obtained an order from the Rent Controller directing the original tenant to pay rent at Rs 105 per month from 1985. After the tenant's death in 1997, his heirs (the appellants) failed to make timely payments, depositing the arrears …
The appellant, Satyawati Sharma, purchased a house in Delhi and sought eviction of tenants who were using the premises for a watch shop and a clinic, invoking the landlord's bona‑fide need under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Act’s Section 14(1)(e) permits eviction only when the premises are …
The appellants, led by Vaisakhi Ram, were tenants of a shop in Delhi since 1956. They allowed three relatives (appellants Nos.2‑4) to conduct independent businesses in a portion of the shop without obtaining the landlord's written consent. The present landlord, Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani, purchased the …
M/S NOPANY INVESTMENTS (P) Ltd., the landlord, sought eviction of SANTOKH SINGH (HUF) tenant. The junior HUF member, Jasraj Singh, filed the suit claiming to be the Karta despite the senior brother being alive but residing abroad and having executed a power of attorney. The Supreme Court held that …
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 22(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the tenant, who died during the proceedings. The landlord then moved an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC asserting that the tenant's son could not inherit the tenancy. The Additional …
The landlord, Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, leased a showroom to four brothers jointly under a lease deed dated 4 September 1977 for Rs. 2,500 per month, later increased to over Rs. 3,500, causing the Delhi Rent Control Act to cease applying. She served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of …
The appellant, Nathi Devi, was a long‑term tenant of premises that the respondent, Radha Devi Gupta, purchased in 1982. The respondent, a widow, filed an eviction petition under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming immediate possession for her own residence. The key issue was …
The landlord, Mis. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., filed an eviction suit under the Delhi Rent Control Act alleging illegal sub‑letting by the tenant, Mis. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, which the tenant appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal under Section 38. The …
The landlord sued Singer India Ltd for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, alleging that the American tenant had transferred possession to the Indian company without the landlord's written consent. The transfer resulted from a court‑sanctioned amalgamation compelled by a …
The appellant, a tenant, entered into a lease for a shop at Rs 5,000 per month in 1976 and in 1978 applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of a standard rent of Rs 1,350 under Section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. While the application was pending, the 1988 amendment inserted Section …
The father of the plaintiff entered into an agency‑cum‑licence deed with the defendant for the use of a shop as a showroom, with commission payable on tailoring and material sales. Possession of the shop remained with the plaintiffs, but the defendant later occupied it, stopped paying commission and …
The appellants, Sarwan Kumar and another, were heirs of a commercial tenant in a premises governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The landlord, Madan Lal Aggarwal, obtained an ex‑parte decree for ejectment and mesne profits from a civil court, which the appellants challenged on the ground that …
The tenant, Mis. Precision Steel and Engg. Works, occupied a ground‑floor flat in Greater Kailash, Delhi, under a licence deed dated 13 September 1971 that required residential use but permitted incidental office use subject to local authority approval. The landlord, Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, …
The landlord filed an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of personal requirement. The tenant applied for leave to defend, arguing that the lease permitted both residential and commercial use and that decades of commercial occupation implied consent. The Rent …
Rashida Begum, the lessee of a plot allotted by the President of India, entered into a registered agreement for lease that bound her by all covenants as if a formal lease deed had been executed. She constructed a building and let a portion to General Sales Ltd. The superior lessor issued a notice …
The tenants (Mis. Bharat Sales Ltd. and Anr.) occupied a leasehold premises that were originally leased by the Union of India (through the Land & Development Officer) to the landlord. The tenants used the premises for unauthorized commercial purposes, violating conditions imposed on the landlord by …
The landlord, Joginder Pal, filed an eviction petition under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, claiming the premises were needed for the office of his chartered‑accountant son. The tenant, Naval Kishore Behal, occupied the premises for non‑residential purposes …
The appellant, a registered charitable society, sought eviction of the tenant under Section 22(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises. The tenant denied that the appellant was a public institution and that it required the premises. During trial the …
India Automobiles (1960) Ltd., the owner of a nine‑storey commercial building, leased the premises to a tenant who sub‑let parts of it. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation fixed the annual value of the property under Section 174 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, by taking into account …
The landlords filed an eviction suit under Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, claiming that the premises were needed in good faith for their own use and for a clinic of the son‑in‑law. The trial court, after examining the evidence, held that the …
The appellant, a widow of the original landlord S.N. Kapoor, sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises. The Rent Controller held the claim not bona‑fide, and the Delhi High Court dismissed both the revision …
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming a bona‑fide personal requirement for the premises. The tenant applied under Section 25B(5) for leave to contest the eviction, but the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application and …
The appellant, K.D. Dewan, had occupied a residential premises in Chandigarh since 1965, initially paying rent to the father of the respondent and thereafter to the respondent, Harbhajan S. Parihar. The respondent filed an eviction application under Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent …
The landlords (Hem Chand and others) filed a suit under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction of tenants and sub‑tenants on the ground of unauthorised sub‑letting. Only one sub‑tenant (respondent 5) was found to have been inducted without the landlord’s written consent, while six other …
The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of illegal sub‑letting. While the petition was pending, Section 3(c) of the Act was amended (effective 1‑Dec‑1988) to exclude premises with rent above Rs 3,500 from the Act’s jurisdiction. …
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Sections 14(1)(b), (d) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against a tenant and his sub‑tenant, who had been in possession since before 9 June 1952 without the landlord's written consent and without serving the notice required by Section 17(2). …
The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for the premises. The appellant tenant applied for leave to contest the eviction under Section 25‑B, asserting that he was not a tenant but was in …
The landlord, who had settled abroad, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for the premises as his residence. The tenant applied for leave to defend the petition, but the Additional Rent Controller refused, treating the …
The landlord (respondent No.3) purchased premises that were subject to a perpetual lease from the Delhi Improvement Trust, which prohibited any use other than residential without the lessor's written consent. The tenants (appellants) operated a shop in the premises, violating the lease condition. …
Kamla Devi, the landlord, let a big room to Laxmi Devi, the tenant, who later constructed an unauthorised latrine on an adjacent vacant plot of land (9'x7'). The parties compromised, making the plot a rented premises at Rs 5 per month. Kamla later terminated the tenancy and sued for possession of …
The respondent, claiming ownership of a Delhi premises through a sale deed, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, invoking bona‑fide requirement. The appellants, tenants, contended that the property was vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for …
The appellant challenged the assessment of the rateable value of his property for property tax, alleging that the Assessing Officer had ignored the Supreme Court's principle from Dr. Balbir Singh's case that the rateable value cannot exceed the standard rent and must be determined by reference to …
The appellant, Kamala Bakshi, claimed title to premises occupied by the respondent, Khairati Lal, who had entered into a 1960 agreement presented as an employer‑employee relationship but was in fact a tenancy. After a series of litigations, the Delhi High Court in 1991 declared the respondent a …
The plaintiff, Mohinder Kaur, sued the defendant, Kusamanand, for eviction and mesne profits of a ground‑floor residential premises, alleging the defendant was a trespasser. The defendant claimed she had been let in as a tenant by D.K. Chadha, who held a power of attorney for the plaintiff, and …
The appellant, a tenant, occupied the first floor and barsati of a house in Defence Colony, New Delhi. The landlord, a doctor, sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises for himself and his family. The Additional Rent …
Sarla Ahuja, a widow residing in Calcutta, sought eviction of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the tenant of her Delhi premises, invoking Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground of a bona‑fide requirement and lack of suitable accommodation in Delhi. The Rent Controller …
The landlord (appellant) filed an eviction suit against the original tenant for non‑payment of rent and alleged sub‑letting. The trial court decreed eviction, but the Karnataka High Court set aside the decree, holding that Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was invalid per Padmanabha …
The tenant, Mohan Singh, obtained two successive permissions for a limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. After the second limited period expired, the landlord sought possession and the tenant alleged that the second permission was procured by fraud and that he was …
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming a bona‑fide need for the suit premises. The tenant contended that the landlord already possessed an alternate residence at Subzi Mandi, which was concealed, and that the …
The appellant, a Central Government employee about to retire, filed an eviction petition under Sections 14(1)(e) and 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking possession of premises he had let out for his own residence. He named both respondents – a wife and her husband – as parties, alleging …
The landlord, Life Insurance Corporation of India, sought eviction of the tenant, Mis Bharat Sales Ltd., under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of sub‑letting. The Additional Rent Controller, the Rent Control Tribunal and the Delhi High Court all held that the …
The premises were originally leased to Cox & Kings (Agents) Ltd., a foreign company incorporated in the United Kingdom. After the Reserve Bank of India denied permission for the foreign company to continue its business under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the leasehold interest was …
The appellant, a lady doctor, rented the ground floor of a house in 1963 for residential-cum-clinic purposes. She later built her own house and shifted her residence, but continued using the rented premises solely as a clinic. The respondent landlady filed for eviction under Section 14(1)(k) of the …
The tenant, Jain Motor Car Co., was served an eviction petition by the landlord, S.P. Jain, for defaulting on rent payment and alleged sub‑letting. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to pay arrears within one month and to continue depositing monthly rent by the 15th, but the tenant paid the …
The appellant, a retired IPS officer, was allotted a government residence while in service. An amendment to the Allotment of Government Residence (General Pool) Rules, 1963, effective 1 January 1976, required any officer who owned a house to surrender the government accommodation and imposed a …
The tenant, Chinnamma, occupied a residential premises under a lease from Gopalan and fell into rent arrears from June 1975. After a statutory notice, the landlord sought eviction under sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Controller ordered …
The landlord, Smt. Kamla Devi, owned a shop let to Sh. Vasdev who fell behind on rent. After a demand notice, the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to pay the arrears within one month under Section …
The petitioners, who were the legal heirs of statutory tenants of residential premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, challenged the amendment introduced by Act 18 of 1976 that inserted clause (iii) in Section 2(1), which restricts the heritability of such residential tenancies. They argued …
Ahmed Begum, the owner of Dharampur Lodge, leased the entire premises to S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar, who was authorized to sub‑let. The appellant, Manphul Singh Sharma, and other sub‑tenants claimed to be lawful sub‑tenants and sought protection under Section 20 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, …
Anand Swaroop Vohra, a retired Central Government employee, applied under Section 25‑B(1) read with Section 14‑C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of his tenant on the ground that the premises were needed for his own residence because the accommodation he occupied was insufficient. …
The landlord filed an eviction suit under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for the premises. The tenant, a company, relied on Clause 5 of the lease deed which stated the premises were for the residence and personal use of directors, their …
The respondent, who succeeded her father as landlord of a flat let to the appellant on October 1, 1961, sought eviction under clause (e) of section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide personal requirement. The appellant contended that the flat, although let for …
The appellant, Smt. Dhawan, applied to the Delhi Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking permission to let her premises for a three‑year residential tenancy, stating she would need the house thereafter. The Rent Controller granted the permission, but the tenant, …
The landlord filed an eviction application under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, alleging that the tenant, Guizar Singh, had sublet the premises to his brother Avtar Singh. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal relied on an affidavit filed by Avtar Singh before the Income …
The landlords obtained eviction decrees against the legal representatives of original tenants under the Delhi Rent Control Act. Two heirs, who were not joined as parties, challenged the execution of those decrees, asserting independent tenancy rights. The Supreme Court examined whether unjoined …
The case concerned two tenants occupying premises let out by Army officers who, as classified landlords under Sections 14B‑14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, sought immediate possession for their own residence. The Rent Controller denied the tenants leave to contest the eviction applications, …
The case concerned an appeal by EMC Steel Ltd. against a judgment granting possession of premises to a widow-landlady under Section 14‑D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellant argued that the provision should apply only when the widow became such after the premises were let out by her or …
The landlords and tenants jointly obtained permission for a five‑year limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. After the tenancy expired, the landlords sought possession, but the tenants argued that a prior tenancy already existed and that the permission was obtained by …
The tenant, Rai Chand Jain, leased a house from landlady Chandra Kanta Khosla for residential purposes, but later operated a printing press (M/s Navneet Prakashan) from the premises. The landlady sought eviction on grounds of non‑payment of rent, change of use, and her bona‑fide requirement for the …
The Supreme Court considered appeals by Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and other tenants whose leases in premises owned by nationalised banks and the Life Insurance Corporation had expired and who were facing eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 as well as …
The tenant was granted a three‑year tenancy under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, with the Controller's permission. The landlord died before the tenancy expired, and his legal representatives later applied to the Controller for recovery of possession after the tenant failed to …
The landlady obtained a limited tenancy for two years under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. After the tenancy expired, the tenant refused to vacate and the landlady applied for a warrant of possession. The tenant raised an objection to the validity of the limited tenancy only after …
Subhash Mehta, a tenant, occupied a residential premises under a lease from Dr. S.P. Choudhary. After being ordered by the Rent Controller under s.15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act to pay arrears and future rent by the 15th of each month, Mehta delayed future rent payments, leading the Controller …
The landlord (appellant) obtained two eviction orders against the tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: one under section 14(1)(e) for personal bona fide requirement and another under section 14(1)(a) for non‑payment of rent, the latter being settled by compromise with the tenant delivering …
The landlord sought eviction of tenant Duli Chand under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, alleging that the tenant had sub-let the shop to M/s Hira Lal Sri Bhagwan after June 9, 1952 without the landlord's written consent. The tenant contended that no sub‑letting occurred, that …
Shiv Chander Kapoor, the landlord, let the second floor of his building to Amar Bose for a three‑year limited tenancy under a permission obtained from the Rent Controller pursuant to Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground that the premises would be needed for his son’s …
The landlord (respondent) leased premises to Bajaj Auto Ltd (appellant) under an unregistered lease deed that prohibited sub‑letting without the landlord’s written consent, but allowed assignment to associate concerns without consent. Bajaj Auto sub‑let the premises to United Automobiles, its …
The appellant, a landlady, let premises to the respondent, a tenant, on a rent payable in advance. The tenant fell into arrears for April and May 1976 and was served a notice of demand on 7 May 1976. He tendered two bank drafts covering the rent for April (13 May) and May (11 June), which the …
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, alleging that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of her own house on 20 November 1973, thereby disqualifying her from retaining the rented premises. The tenant argued that she was not liable …
The Prabha Manufacturing Industrial Co‑operative Society was allotted an "industrial plot" with a self‑constructed shed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property in 1949. The Society later sought a permanent allotment, but the Custodian sold the land at auction in 1960 to the predecessor of Banwari Lal. …
Pal Singh occupied three rooms and a courtyard in an evacuee property that was later jointly purchased by Sunder Singh and the late Smt. Sham Kaur. In 1975 Sunder Singh filed an eviction suit under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide requirement, but the other …
The landlord obtained a Section 21 sanction from the Additional Rent Controller to grant limited tenancy rights to two tenants, despite having already let them occupy the premises in December 1975. The tenants argued that an oral tenancy already existed and that the sanction was obtained by …
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, alleging that the tenant had part‑ended possession of a residential‑cum‑commercial premises by allowing his sons to run a tent‑house business there. The tenant contended that he …
The landlords, Rakesh Kumar and Shri Shakti Kumar, leased two shops to Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd. under a lease requiring rent in advance. The tenant fell into arrears for February, March and April 1982, prompting the landlords to serve a reminder notice on 8 March 1982 and a termination notice on …
The landlord, an advocate, orally let a part of his residential premises comprising servants' quarters and a ground‑floor hall to the tenant for Rs 600 per month, with rent thereafter paid by two cheques—Rs 250 by the tenant and Rs 350 by a trust (Balkunj) of which the tenant was secretary. The …
The landlord sought eviction of Shalimar Tar Products Ltd., the tenant, alleging that the tenant had sub-let part of the premises to R.C. Abrol & Co. without the landlord's written consent as required by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant contended that no notice to quit was served, that …
The landlady, residing abroad, sought to evict the tenant of a premises leased to M/s Bharat Carbons & Ribbons Manufacturing Co. under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming bona‑fide necessity. The tenant company had abandoned the premises, and the appellant – the widow of a former employee of …
The appellant, B.R. Mehta, had been a tenant of a house in Kalkaji since 1968. In 1978 his wife, a government teacher, was allotted a separate government quarter, which she later vacated and rejoined the family home. The landlord sought eviction of the appellant under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi …
The tenant appealed against a decree of eviction granted to the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of bona‑fide requirement. The landlord’s building stood on land leased from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and the lease had been subject to a …
The petitioners, Md. Salim and others, claimed they were sub‑tenants under a 1966 agreement with the landlord, Md. Ali, and therefore should not be bound by an eviction decree issued against the principal tenant. The High Court held that the agreement was merely for the management of the landlord’s …
The Delhi Rent Controller ordered the eviction of tenant Kash! Ram in October 1960 on the ground of the landlord's bona‑fide requirement. The landlord's applications for permission to execute the order under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 were dismissed in 1963, …
The respondent, a government official residing in government quarters, obtained permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to let a portion of his house to the appellant for 18 months. After the lease term expired, the appellant refused to vacate and the respondent filed an …
The landlord, I.M. Lal, obtained permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, to let his newly built premises to Ramesh Khanna for a two‑year residential tenancy, after stating that he did not require the premises for that period. When the tenant refused to vacate after two …
The appellant, Shafait Ali, appealed against an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground of the landlord's bona‑fide requirement. The principal question was whether Sections 14(1)(e) and 14A (along with 25A‑C) of the Rent Act are special provisions …
The Supreme Court examined an eviction dispute under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 where the landlord sought possession of three tenants on the ground that each had either built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted another residence, as stipulated in clause (h) of Section 14(1). The …
The case concerned a government servant, S.P. Jain, who was ordered to vacate his government‑allotted quarters and sought immediate possession of the first floor of his own house in Meerut cantonment, which was let to K.M. Gupta. Jain filed an eviction petition under sections 24B and 24C of the U.P. …
The respondent landlady owned a two‑door premises and sought eviction of the appellant tenant under s.14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming bonafide personal necessity for residence and that she had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. During the pendency of the proceedings …
The State of West Bengal sought eviction of Saral Kumar Sen Gupta, who had been allotted a government flat under the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. Clause (7) of the tenancy agreement required the premises to be used exclusively for the residence of the tenant and …
The landlords filed three eviction suits against three tenants for non‑payment of rent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. While the suits were pending, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 came into force and the tenants paid the arrears, obtaining protection from eviction under section …
The appellant, Giradhari Lal & Sons, occupied premises as sub‑tenants of M/s Om Prakash & Co., which itself was the tenant of the landlord, Balbir Nath Mathur. The landlord obtained an ex parte eviction decree against the tenant, and the appellant sought protection under Sections 17 and 18 of the …
The University of Delhi, a public educational institution, was bequeathed a building and sought to evict its tenants under Section 22(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming the premises were needed to provide residential accommodation for its employees. The tenants contested the eviction, …
The appellant's husband was a tenant of a shop under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. After the landlord served a notice of termination, the tenant died while still in possession as a statutory tenant. The widow and heirs claimed the right to remain in possession and the protection against eviction …
The appellant landlord created a three‑year limited tenancy for the first respondent under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and sought possession of the premises at the tenancy's expiry. After the tenant failed to vacate despite two registered notices, the landlord obtained a warrant …
The landlord filed three ejectment applications against the tenant for possession of a room in Kamla Nagar, Delhi. In the first proceeding (1967) the Rent Controller ordered the tenant to pay arrears under s.14(2) read with s.15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; the tenant complied and the …
The Supreme Court examined challenges by several property owners against assessments made by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The core issue was how to determine the rateable value of four categories of properties …
The appellant, N. Khamman, was a tenant of P. K. Jain, a former government servant who had been allotted government residential accommodation. A 1975 government order required servants who owned a dwelling in Delhi to vacate such accommodation or pay market rent. The respondent vacated the …
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, alleging that the premises were let for a composite residential and office purpose, which would disqualify the tenancy from protection. The lease deed contained a clause stating the premises were …
The landlord, Ratan Lal, sought to evict his tenant, Ravi Dutt Sharma, under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. He had earlier applied for permission under section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, but the application was dismissed. The tenant …
The landlord, Smt. Ram Chambeli, obtained permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act to lease her premises for three years by making false statements about her need for the property and the condition of her family. After the lease term, she sought possession, but the tenants …
The plaintiff, a retired Indian Army officer, acquired a portion of a property by gift after his retirement and sought to evict a tenant under section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, producing a certificate from the Army. The trial court granted the …
The landlord, a Hindu Undivided Family, sought eviction of the tenant, Precision Steel & Engineering Works, under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming bona‑fide personal need for the premises. The tenant filed an affidavit seeking leave to contest, …
Baldev Singh rented a house in 1961 and lived there with his mother, brother and sister. In 1971 he migrated to Canada, leaving his mother, brother and sister in the premises who continued to pay rent. The landlord sought eviction under section 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, arguing …
The respondent, a government employee and landlord, sought eviction of the appellants under section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming he needed the premises for personal occupation because earlier government notifications (9‑Sept‑1975 and a special order of 22‑Jan‑1976) required him …
Shiela Kaushish, a taxpayer, constructed a warehouse in Delhi and let it out to the American Embassy under several leases, eventually receiving a total rent of Rs.34,797 per month from April 1968. For the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Income‑Tax Officer treated the actual rent received …
The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) bought a building at auction and the appellant, Jain Ink Manufacturing Co., was a tenant under the previous owner. LIC served notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to terminate the tenancy, but the appellant remained in possession. LIC …
The appellant, a working woman tenant, paid all rent arrears to her advocate, who failed to deposit the amounts with the court or pay the landlord. The Delhi Rent Controller, relying on Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, struck out the tenant's defence and proceeded with the …
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 …
A landlady repeatedly let her premises to a tenant for residential purposes under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, obtaining the Controller's sanction each time. When the lease expired, she sought summary eviction via an execution petition, which the Controller rejected on the ground …
