Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987

10 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

HARI DASS SHARMAversusVIKAS SOOD & ORS.

2013 INSC 29129 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Haridas Sharma, sought eviction of the tenants under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, claiming a bona‑fide need for the building to be rebuilt. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority upheld the eviction, but the High Court, relying on Harrington House School v. S.M

KALA AND ANR.versusMADHO PARSHAD VAIDYA

1998 INSC 32327 August 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Madho Parshad Vaidya, sought eviction of tenant Kala Devi under Section 14(2)(ii) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, alleging that she had sublet the shop to Ravinder Kapur. The trial court found no evidence of subletting, holding that Kapur was merely a manager and that Kala retained p

KALA AND ANR.versusMADHO PARSHAD VAIDYA

1998 INSC 32427 August 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Madho Parshad Vaidya, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(2)(ii) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, alleging that tenant Kala Devi had sublet her shop to Ravinder Kapur. The trial court found no evidence of subletting and held that the tenant retained possession, dismissing the

SH. DEWAN CHAND BHALLAversusDR. ASHOK KUMAR BHOIL

1994 INSC 28122 July 1994Dismissed

The appellant, a government servant, was allotted a government residential accommodation and was a tenant of a residential building owned by the respondent landlord. The landlord invoked Section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 to obtain possession, arguing that the tenant was liable fo

JAGAT PAL DHAWANversusKAHAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2002 INSC 48721 November 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Jagat Pal Dhawan, filed a suit under Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 seeking eviction of his tenant, Kahan Singh, on the ground that the over‑100‑year‑old building was required bona‑fide for reconstruction into a modern three‑storeyed house. The trial court and the Hi

PREM CHAND ALIAS PREM NATHversusSMT. SHANTA PRABHAKAR

1997 INSC 73017 November 1997Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, claiming the tenant defaulted on rent and that the premises were needed bona fide for building or rebuilding. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition for lack of evidence about the building's conditio

MADAN MOHAN AND ANOTHERversusKRISHAN KUMAR SOOD

1993 INSC 712 January 1993Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords (Madan Mohan and another) sought eviction of tenant Krishan Kumar Sood under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 for non‑payment of rent. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on 29 July 1986, allowing the tenant 30 days to pay the "amount due". The tenant deposited Rs 8,500, which the landlo

SURINDER SINGH SIBIAversusVIJA Y KUMAR SOOD

1991 INSC 25910 October 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Surinder Singh Sibia, owned a house in Himachal Pradesh where he occupied the first floor and let the second floor to a judge. The entire house was later requisitioned for the judge's use under the Himachal Pradesh Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1972, and the appellant did not fil

SHRI KAILASH CHAND AND ANR.versusSHRI DHARAM DASS

2004 INSC 5897 October 2004Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant, a landlord, owned a building in Shimla and initially evicted the tenant from the first floor in 1984. By a 1986 compromise the tenant vacated the first floor and took the ground floor. In 1993 the landlord, citing his wife's relocation and his child's education, sought eviction of the tenant from the gro

KAILASH CHAND AND ANR.versusDHARAM DASS

2005 INSC 2534 May 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Kailash Chand and Nokha Ram, owned a two‑storeyed building in Shimla and sought eviction of their tenant, Dharm Dass, under Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for his own occupation. An eviction order was initially granted, but duri

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