Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
The tenant, Shri Mundri Lal, challenged an eviction suit filed by his landlord, Smt. Sushila Rani, under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, contending that the premises were a "new construction" and therefore exempt under Section 2(2) of the Act. …
The landlord, Bhola Nath Varshney, served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and filed an eviction suit in 1981 against his tenant, Mulk Raj Madan, for a building constructed in 1974. The issue was whether the Uttar Pradesh Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and …
The landlord filed an eviction suit in June 1977 against a tenant after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The house was constructed in August 1968, and the landlord argued that the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 did not …
The appellant, a tenant, was sued for eviction and recovery of rent arrears dating back to 1968. An ex parte decree was set aside in 1977, after which the tenant deposited Rs.2,912 on 30 May 1977, claiming that date to be the first hearing. He later sought to amend his pleadings to include …
Shiv Kumar, a landlord, filed an eviction suit on 11 June 1973 under the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming the Act did not apply because the shop was constructed in 1966 and was exempt for ten years. The tenants argued that the Act did apply and that …
The Supreme Court examined whether a further revision by a High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is permissible against a District Court's revisional order made under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act, 1965. Earlier decisions – Aundal Ammal v. …
The appellant, a tenant, occupied a shop on 16 June 1967. The landlord sought eviction, arguing that the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 did not apply because the building was within the ten‑year exemption period. The lower courts held that the date of …
