Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
48 judgments · newest first · showing 1–48
Abdul Khuddus, a statutory tenant under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, was evicted when the Bangalore City Corporation demolished the dilapidated building under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. The tenant filed suits for injunction, possession and damages, which the High …
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 landlords, Mrs. Zakiya Begum and others, let a premises to the tenants, Mrs. Shanaz Ali and others, at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000. The landlords filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, but while the suit was pending the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force, …
The respondent, claiming ownership of a suit‑premises, filed eviction petitions under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The first appellant contended that he was no longer a tenant after entering into an agreement of sale with the previous owner, Anthony Swamy, …
Kusum Devi, the landlady, filed a suit for eviction of tenant Mohan Lal under sections 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(g) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona‑fide need for residential occupation and for repairs because the premises were unsafe. The trial court and the first …
The dispute concerned a building owned by the Bangalore Mahanagar Palike that had been leased to Dhanpal and later sold to Doraiswamy through a court‑executed sale deed. Doraiswamy, acting as landlord, filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 on the ground of bona‑fide …
The case concerned an eviction suit filed by a landlord under the Karnataka Rent Control Act against a tenant, H.S. Anand, who had deserted his wife, B.P. Achala Anand, leaving her in the tenanted matrimonial home. The wife sought to be impleaded and to contest the eviction, arguing that she …
The landlord evicted the tenant under Sections 22(1)(h) and 22(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and the Small Causes Court ordered eviction on 4 February 2000. The tenant filed a revision petition under Section 50(1) on 6 April 2000, having sent the arrears of rent by money order on 11 …
The plaintiff, Chidambaram, entered into a sale agreement on 14‑June‑1979 to purchase a premises, but the vendor failed to deliver title. While the suit for specific performance was pending, the vendor purportedly sold the same property to Sargunam on 29‑Nov‑1979, allegedly under a prior agreement …
The landlord G.V. Srinivasa Murthy leased a non‑residential premises to Mahendra Saree Emporium, originally a sole proprietorship, which later converted into a partnership with the tenant's relatives. The landlord claimed unlawful sub‑letting under Section 21(1)(t) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, …
The landlord sought eviction of a tenant and his sub‑tenants under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, alleging illegal sub‑letting without consent. The District Judge upheld the illegal sub‑letting and ordered eviction, but the High Court, relying on A.S. Sulochana's case, …
The Kaveripatnam Subbaraya Setty Annaiah Setty Charities Trust (appellant) owned a shop that it let to S.K. Viswanatha Setty (respondent) from 1950. In 1969 the trust demolished the old building and completed a new one in 1975; the respondent vacated the old shop and later sought to be re‑let in the …
The landlord filed eviction petitions under Sections 21(h) and 21(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, seeking possession of premises for his own residence and for demolition and reconstruction. The trial court dismissed the petitions, finding the landlord had not proved the building was …
The landlord Abdul Sattar sought eviction of the heirs of his former tenant Mohammed Gouse under clause (p) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, alleging that one heir had been allotted a house by the Housing Board. The house was allotted in 1984 to the son, Mohammed Ismail, …
The appellant, H. Seshadri, was a shop tenant in a residential building whose residential tenant (respondent No.2) was evicted by a decree. During the execution of that decree, Seshadri was also evicted. He filed an application under Order XXI Rules 99 and 100 of the CPC claiming an independent …
The appellant, D.S. Parvathamma, claimed that an agreement to purchase the suit premises made in 1970 had placed her in possession as a prospective vendor and sought protection of that possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The respondent, A. Srinivasan, a subsequent …
The testator Claude Pinto executed a will appointing his son as executor to sell a property and distribute the proceeds, while also allowing the legatees to seek partition. The executor entered into a sale agreement with the tenant, M.V. Shankar Bhoi, which contained a clause that the sale was …
The tenant (R. Kapilnath, deceased, through LRs) occupied a house owned by a temple and paid rent to the temple's pujari, Krishna, who filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Munsif Court granted eviction under clause (p) of Section 21(1) but not clause (h); the …
The tenants (Mis. M. Subbarao & Sons) were ordered to vacate non‑residential premises under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 came into force on 31‑12‑2001, repealing the 1961 Act and containing a savings provision (Section 70). The tenants argued that, …
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 landlord appealed a High Court decision after eviction proceedings were started under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. While the case was pending, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force, which exempts non‑residential premises larger than 14 square metres from its provisions. The …
The landlord filed eviction proceedings against the tenant under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and obtained a decree for possession. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136. While the appeal was pending, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force, repealing …
The landlord filed an eviction suit under clause (a) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, alleging that the tenant was in arrears of rent. The tenant argued that the advance rent paid at the commencement of tenancy should be adjusted against the arrears, and that Section 18, …
The case concerned a permanent mulgeni lease of about 40 cents of land granted in 1903 with an express clause prohibiting the lessee from alienating the whole leasehold property, but without any clause restricting partial alienation. After the lessee's death, the leasehold was partitioned among …
The landlord sought eviction of a long‑term tenant under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, claiming bona‑fide need for occupation and rent arrears. The tenant argued that the landlord had entered into a sale agreement with a partnership firm of which the tenant was a partner, invoking …
The landlord, Sri Kempaiah, filed an eviction petition under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, claiming a reasonable and bonafide requirement for the premises and alleging arrears of rent. The trial court allowed eviction on the basis of bonafide requirement but rejected the landlord’s claim of …
The appellant, John Mathai Abraham, owned a fractional undivided share in a large building in Bangalore and sought eviction of the respondent, British Physical Lab India Ltd, under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona fide need for personal residence and …
The landlady (appellant No.1) sought eviction of her tenant under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, initially on the ground that her husband required treatment in Bangalore. During the pendency of the suit the husband died, and the landlady amended the petition under Order 6 …
The appellants, owners of a 99‑year lease of non‑agricultural land, sought eviction of the lessees under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for their own business. The trial court allowed the petition, but the district court held the lease to be …
The appellant, a landlord, initially filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 on the ground of bona fide requirement, which he later withdrew after the tenant promised to vacate. When the tenant died and his son continued occupying the premises, the landlord filed a second …
The Board of Management of H.S.I. Said Mosque (landlord) sought to evict tenant Kandaswamy from a vacant plot in Bangalore under Section 21(1)(i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, claiming the land was needed for a new building. The trial court initially granted eviction, but the Karnataka …
The landlord sought eviction of the deceased tenant Gantusa H. Badri's premises under Sections 21(1)(a), (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, alleging arrears and that the tenant had acquired an alternative suitable building through a partnership firm. The Munsiff dismissed the …
The landlord M.S. Zayed sued tenant K. Raghavan for possession of a portion of a house under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, claiming a reasonable and bona‑fide need for the premises. The trial court found the landlord's need genuine and granted possession, but the Karnataka High …
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, P.R. Deshpande, filed a revision petition under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, but failed to deposit the arrears of rent required by Section 29(1) at the time of filing. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the revision petition for this deficiency, gave the tenant six …
The landlord filed an eviction petition which was disposed of by a compromise decree allowing the tenant to occupy the reconstructed premises at a rent "25% less of the prevailing fair rent in the area." After reconstruction the tenant took possession by executing the decree without invoking Section …
The appellant continued to operate a hair‑cutting shop that had been let to his father in 1940, a non‑residential premises, after his father's death in 1974. The landlord filed a petition for eviction under Section 21 read with Section 51(2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, asserting that …
The dispute arose over the lease of the Opera House, a cinema building in Bangalore, which included fittings, furniture and some machinery but excluded projectors, amplifiers, screen and speakers. After a series of lease deeds spanning from 1944 to the 1970s, the respondents sought eviction of the …
The appellant, a long‑time tenant, entered into a 1959 agreement with the landlord to purchase the premises and later compromised a suit for specific performance, agreeing to pay a higher consideration and arrears of rent. He failed to pay the consideration within the stipulated time, causing the …
The landlord leased premises to Esso Company in 1969. When Esso merged into Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPC) in 1974, the landlord filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 alleging sub‑letting. The lower courts dismissed the suit, holding that under the Esso …
The appellant, a tenant, had his revision petition dismissed by the Karnataka High Court for failing to comply with Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and gave an undertaking to vacate the premises within six months. He subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under …
The landlord (appellants) leased land to a tenant (respondent No.1) who was permitted to construct a building and sub‑let portions. After the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 came into force, the tenant inducted sub‑tenants. The landlord sought eviction under Section 21(1) of the Act. The trial …
The landlord obtained a decree of possession against the tenant under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, on the ground of bona‑fide personal requirement to start a business. The landlord died before the tenant vacated, and his heirs sought to execute the decree. The tenant argued …
Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd., a tenant of the Church of South India Trust, defaulted on rent and faced eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The company was also declared a sick industrial company by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies …
The original lessor let two shops and an adjoining house to Bhoolchand Chandiram in 1943 with an option to sub‑let. The tenant sub‑let one shop to Arts Palace in 1946 and later, on 1 April 1948, to Super Dry Cleaners. After the original lessor’s share was sold to Kay Pee Cee Investments in 1974, the …
The appellant, a tenant of a shop in a building owned by Respondent No. 1, was evicted under Section 21(1)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, which allows demolition and reconstruction. The eviction petition stated that the tenant could occupy a corresponding shop in the new building, and …
The appellant, a tenant, occupied a shop premises. The respondents, partners, obtained a usufructuary mortgage over the same premises from the landlord and invoked Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 to evict the tenant, claiming bona‑fide need for their business. The appellant …
Shyamaraju Hegde appealed to the Supreme Court against a Karnataka High Court order dismissing his revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The High Court had relied on its own Full Bench decision in M.M. Yaragatti …
