Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
50 judgments · newest first · showing 1–50
Heera Traders and another appealed against a decree of eviction passed by the trial court under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The landlord, Kamla Jain, sought possession of non‑residential premises and mesne profits, while the tenants argued that Section 13 of the Act, which …
The appellant, a tenant of a shop in Muraina, Madhya Pradesh, faced an eviction suit filed by the landlord under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming the premises were needed for his son Rajendra Kumar's utensil business. The trial court dismissed the …
The appellant, a co‑owner of a house in Jabalpur, proved her title to the suit property through a series of registered sale and partition deeds and served a quit notice on the respondent, who had been a tenant of the original owner, Rai Bahadur Motiram Mathuradas. The respondent denied any …
Shivshankar Gurgar, a landlord, filed a suit under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of his tenant Dilip for arrears of rent. The parties entered into a compromise decree whereby the tenant would pay the arrears within six months, failing which the …
The plaintiff, Tribhuvansankar, purchased a property and sued the defendant, Amrutlal, under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction and mesne profits. The defendant denied any landlord‑tenant relationship and pleaded adverse possession, claiming 18‑19 years of uninterrupted …
The tenant, D.V. Paul, was ordered by the High Court to deposit Rs.10,000 in the trial court as compensation, failing which an eviction decree would follow. He mistakenly sent a demand draft directly to the landlord instead of depositing it in court, and later sought an extension of time to make the …
The appellants, owners of Shop No.1214 in Jabalpur, filed an eviction suit under sections 12(1)(c), (f) and (g) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The respondents contended that the suit property was a Wakf property and, later, claimed it was a joint family property, though no …
The landlord, Ram Babu Agarwal, filed an eviction suit against tenant Jay Kishan Das under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, alleging default in rent and a bona‑fide need for the premises. The High Court held that the tenant had fully paid the rent as ordered in a revision …
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 appellant, a widow who purchased a shop in 1996, filed a composite eviction suit against the tenant for default in rent, denial of title, and her bona‑fide requirement to use the premises for her son’s business. The trial court and the first appellate court allowed the suit, but the High Court …
The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on grounds of default in rent, sub‑letting and later bonafide necessity. The tenant was given protection under s.12(3) and the first suit was decreed on bonafide necessity, not on arrears …
The appellant, a tenant, executed a registered usufructuary mortgage deed with the respondent, the landlord, allowing the appellant to occupy the ground floor in lieu of interest for ten years. After the ten‑year period the respondent filed a suit for redemption and possession, which the trial court …
The landlord filed an eviction suit under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 alleging default in rent, illegal sub‑letting and a bona‑fide requirement for the premises. The trial court and the first appellate court upheld the landlord’s claim of genuine need and decreed eviction. On …
The appellants, heirs of Girdhari Lal Gattani, filed a suit in 1962 under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 seeking eviction of the respondents, tenants, on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for non‑residential premises. The suit was decreed, but the tenants …
The landlord of a shop in Shimla sued the widow and minor son of the deceased tenant for eviction under Section 14(2)(ii)(a) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, alleging that the tenant had sublet the premises to a partner and that the subletting continued after his death. The Rent …
The appellant, a lessee of a non‑residential municipal premises, sub‑let the property to the respondent and later served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to terminate the tenancy for non‑payment of rent and self‑occupation. The respondent filed an eviction suit which was …
The Balaji Mandir Trust, a religious institution registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, filed an eviction suit against tenants Ramgopal and others, relying on a notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 that exempted trust properties …
The landlord of a shop in Neemuch sued the heirs of the original tenant for eviction after they defaulted on rent. The original tenant, Badri Lal, had previously avoided eviction by invoking the proviso to sub‑section (3) of section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and …
The Supreme Court considered appeals by two tenants who were evicted from two shops in Indore after the widow of the former owner and her two sons filed eviction applications before the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA) under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming bonafide …
The case concerned a suit for eviction of a tenant (Sheela et al.) by a partnership firm claiming to be the landlord of a shop premises under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The tenant contested the eviction, arguing that the firm was not the owner and that his written statement …
The appellant, a tenant, filed a suit for injunction against the respondent landlord. The landlord filed a counter‑claim under Order VIII, Rule 6 of the CPC invoking Section 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, seeking eviction on the ground of bona‑fide personal requirement. …
The respondent landlady sued the appellant tenant for eviction and recovery of rent arrears, invoking bona‑fide requirement under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The trial court found a landlord‑tenant relationship, held the tenant in arrears and the landlady’s need bona‑fide, …
The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on grounds of rent default and unauthorised occupation of a portion of the premises. The trial court decreed eviction, but the first appellate court reversed, erroneously requiring the …
The appellant-landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming default in rent and a bonafide requirement to use the shop for his son’s business. The trial court dismissed the rent default claim …
The landlords owned a property in Ujjain and let three rooms to the tenant at Rs.60 per month. The tenant defaulted on rent for March‑July 1976 and produced forged receipts; the landlords gave notice of termination for arrears and nuisance and sued for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya …
The appellant-landlord filed an eviction suit under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bonafide requirement to use the premises for a motorcycle showroom. The trial court held that the landlord needed the premises and that no other suitable shop was …
The landlord (appellant) sought eviction of a tenant from two shops under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bonafide requirement to start a business for his unemployed son and asserting that he had no other suitable non‑residential accommodation. The …
The appellant, P.K. Gupta, purchased a shop‑godown from Narain Prasad and sued the tenant, R. Nagdeo, for eviction under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act for default in rent. The tenant contended that the sale deed was a benami transaction, alleging that the appellant was merely a name‑lender …
Babulal, a tenant of a shop owned by the Phool Maliyan Samaj Mandir Trust, had his tenancy terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but refused to vacate. The trustees filed an eviction suit, contending that the property was exempt from the Madhya Pradesh …
The landlord filed an eviction suit against a partnership firm. The son of a deceased partner sought to be impleaded as an additional defendant, first under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and later under Order 30 Rule 4 CPC, both applications being dismissed by the trial court and the district court. While …
The appellant, a landlady, filed an eviction petition against the lessee under Section 23A(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant was not the owner because the premises were owned by the Municipal Corporation. On …
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 tenant, Nathu Ram, occupied a shop owned originally by Banarsidas. After Banarsidas died, his widowed daughter‑in‑law, Anar Devi, claimed ownership and sought possession of the shop for the bona‑fide requirement of starting a business for her sons, invoking clause (b) of Section 23A of the …
The respondent landlady filed an eviction suit under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises to continue her son’s tailoring business. The trial court upheld the claim, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the son’s …
The appellant, Subhash Chandra, inherited a tenancy originally created by a lease deed (Ext. P.20) between Navinchand and his father Misri Lal. Navinchand later sold the property to the respondents, who terminated the tenancy and sued for eviction. The appellant defended by claiming that the …
SMT. Saiyada was allotted a parcel of land on licence by Hindustan Steel Ltd., a government company, but the licence was cancelled on allegations of encroachment and illegal construction. The company initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, …
In a suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, the plaintiff claimed personal necessity and ownership of a shop. The trial court and the Additional District Judge rejected his claim for lack of a partition deed proving ownership. The High Court …
The landlord filed an eviction suit under Section 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises. The tenant contested, asserting the landlord already had sufficient accommodation and the suit was to raise rent. The trial court ordered …
The landlord, who ran a leather business, sought eviction of his tenant under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises for the business of his two sons. The sons had entered into a partnership with unrelated …
The respondents, a father and son, filed an eviction petition under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for a shop‑room to start a readymade‑garments business. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, a …
The Arya Samaj, which runs a girls' school, filed an eviction suit against the tenant occupying its building, claiming the premises were needed for additional school accommodation. The trial court and the appellate court ordered eviction under section 12(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation …
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 tenants of several buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts challenged a 1976 Government of Tamil Nadu notification that exempted all such buildings from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. They argued that …
The landlord served a notice on 21 October 1969 demanding arrears of rent for a portion of a shop and verandah and claimed termination of the tenancy, thereafter filing an eviction suit under section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The tenant deposited the arrears but …
The landlord sought eviction of the tenants under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bonafide need to demolish the building and construct a gold and silver ornaments factory. The lower courts upheld the eviction, citing sections 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h), and the tenants …
The landlord filed two eviction suits seeking possession of a non‑residential building, claiming he needed the premises to start a medicine shop and to carry out reconstruction, and that he had no other suitable accommodation. The tenant argued that the landlord already possessed a major portion of …
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 …
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for failure to pay rent arrears. The trial court allowed the tenant to claim protection under section 12(3) after he deposited the arrears, and dismissed the eviction suit. While the appeal was …
