Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
25 judgments · newest first · showing 1–25
The landlord (Ravi Khandelwal) filed an eviction suit in 1985 against the tenant (M/s Taluka Stores) for a shop in Jaipur. The suit was dismissed by the trial court in 2002 for violating Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which bars eviction suits …
The suit for eviction and recovery of rent was filed in 2002 under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Old Act). The suit was decreed in 2016 and affirmed on appeal, but the parties remained in dispute over mesne profits during the stay of execution. The tenants argued …
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 landlord Harbans Kaur let two shops to Iqbal Singh in 1995 at Rs 8,500 per month with a contractual 10 % annual increase, which raised the rent to Rs 16,564 by 2003. The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 came into force on 1 April 2003. The landlord served a notice on 27 March 2004 demanding …
The landlord filed an eviction suit under Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 alleging the tenant had not paid rent from July 1981 to June 1984. The trial court decreed eviction without first fixing provisional rent as required by Section 13(3). The …
The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a civil revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, challenging an arbitral award dated 18 June 2003, but the revision was filed 80 days after the statutory three‑month period. The State also sought condonation of the delay …
Baldev Krishan, the landlord, filed an eviction suit under s.13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, claiming bonafide need for himself, his wife and family. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed in his favour, but during the pendency the …
The dispute concerned a shop in Kishangarh where an eviction suit was filed against the tenant, late Santok Singh, and his firm. Santok Singh died during the pendency of a second appeal, and his two sons applied to be substituted as his legal representatives under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC, …
The landlord, Ram Niwas, filed an eviction suit against tenants Gurubachan Singh and another, alleging default in rent and unauthorized sub‑letting of a shop to the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (RTDC) at Rs 2100 per month for four months. The tenants contended that they had deposited …
The tenants (appellants) were ordered by the Rent Control Court to vacate premises for default in rent payment. They appealed under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975, but had not deposited the arrears of rent required by Section 13(1). The lower courts held the …
The landlords filed an eviction suit under Section 13(1)(a) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 alleging that the tenants had defaulted in rent for over three years. While the suit was pending, Ajmer became part of Rajasthan, bringing the premises within the Rajasthan Premises (Control of …
The appeal concerned a landlord-tenant dispute under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The tenant failed to deposit the arrears of rent within the period prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Act and sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation …
In the first suit, the tenant defaulted on rent but deposited the arrears in court under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and the trial court denied eviction. The landlord appealed, withdrew the appeal, and meanwhile filed a second suit alleging a new …
The appellant, Vashu Deo, was a sub‑tenant of Bal Kishan who had leased a shop from the Sarvjanik Sampati Trust under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The appellant fell into rent arrears and Bal Kishan sued him for recovery of rent and eviction, while the Trust …
The tenant occupied a shop in the landlord's building and fell into arrears of rent, prompting the landlord to file an eviction suit under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The tenant had previously deposited rent in court under Section 19A, and again …
The landlord (Hari Singh) sued his tenant (Kanhaiya Lal) for eviction on grounds of rent default, sub‑letting and nuisance, and also sought fixation of standard rent under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The trial court decreed eviction finding default, sub‑letting …
Ladu Ram, the landlord, filed an eviction suit against tenant Ganesh Lal under Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, alleging default in rent payment but did not seek a separate decree for recovery of arrears. The trial court provisionally determined …
The respondent, a Masjid, sued the appellants for eviction and arrears of rent, claiming the tenancy had been determined. The appellants argued that the lease termination was a forfeiture under Section 114-A of the Transfer of Property Act and that the premises were exempt from the Rajasthan …
Anandi Bai held a shop in Jaipur under an 11‑month lease that was terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, but she continued in possession and paid rent, becoming a statutory tenant. She died in September 1966 and her heirs (the appellants) were sued for ejectment by …
The landlord filed an eviction suit under Section 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging that the tenant had ceased to occupy a shop for a continuous period of more than four months between 1969 and 1971. The lower courts upheld the eviction, holding that the tenant's …
Vatan Mal, a shop lessee since 1961, faced eviction suits by his landlord Kailash Nath for alleged rent defaults. After an earlier suit in 1967 was dismissed when Mal paid arrears under the pre‑amendment provisions, a second suit was filed in 1975. The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and …
The landlord sued the tenant for eviction under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, alleging (i) parting with possession of the shop roof by installing an advertisement board, (ii) material alteration of the premises by fixing the board with iron angles, and (iii) …
Kundan Mal occupied a premises from 1953 and, after the death of the original owner, recognized Gurudutta as his landlord and paid rent. In 1973 he received a municipal notice to remove the structure and sued the municipality, while Gurudutta sued him for alleged non‑payment of rent and denial of …
The tenants appealed an eviction order that was based on an alleged material alteration – the construction of a wooden balcony (Dochhatti) – without the landlord's permission under Section 13(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The trial court and the Rajasthan …
The respondent mortgaged his shop and handed possession to the mortgagees, who subsequently let the premises to the appellant as a tenant. The respondent sued for redemption of the mortgage and vacant possession; the mortgage was redeemed and an order was made to give possession to the respondent. …
