Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
56 judgments · newest first · showing 1–56
M/s. Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd., the landlord, leased a property to K. Subramaniam who paid only a fraction of the agreed rent, leading the Rent Controller to fix a higher fair rent. The lessee contested the fair rent but did not obtain a stay of the order, and continued to pay only a portion of the …
A. Mahalakshmi, holding a power of attorney for the owner of a commercial premises, leased the property to Bala Venkatram under a 2007 rental agreement. The landlord later discovered that the premises were being operated under a different name by Shahu Hameed, who held the sales‑tax certificate, …
The appellants, operating as M/s Alagu Pharmacy, claimed tenancy of a premises based on a lease dated 22‑02‑2012, which the respondent landlord alleged was forged and lodged a police complaint. A compromise was entered on 29‑01‑2014, before the landlord filed an eviction petition under the Tamil …
The appellants, the wife and sons of the deceased landlord, sought eviction of the tenant M. Chinnian on grounds of willful rent default and bona‑fide need of the premises. The High Court, on revision, set aside the earlier findings of the Rent Controller and the first appellate court, holding that …
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 tenants (appellants) occupied three non‑residential premises in Chennai. For the first premises, the Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent using a market value of the land of Rs 25 lakhs per ground, and appeals against that order were pending. For the second and third premises, the appellate …
The appellant, Speedline Agencies, occupied a building and land leased from United Coffee Supply Co. Ltd., later renamed Stanes Tea and Coffee Ltd., for over four decades. The landlord filed a petition under sections 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, …
The Supreme Court examined whether a tenant who tendered rent by money order, which the landlord refused to accept, was required to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court held that the word "may" in Section 27 is to be read as …
The landlord filed a petition for fixation of fair rent and the tenant filed a counter‑statement. After the trial began, the tenant sought permission to file an additional written statement raising a new plea about the extent of his lease. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the …
The appellant, a tenant, challenged an order fixing fair rent by filing a revision petition under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The High Court admitted the petition on the condition that the appellant deposit 50% of the arrears and continue paying the …
The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant for willful non‑payment of rent from March 1990 to July 1997 and alleged sub‑letting and demolition. Under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 the Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit all …
The landlord leased a room in Madras for a shoe/leather goods business, but the tenant also sold readymade garments, fixed sign‑boards, drilled holes for racks and obtained a separate three‑phase electric connection. The landlord sought eviction under Sections 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of the …
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 tenant, P.M. Punnoose, paid rent by money orders but the landlords, K.M. Munneruddin et al., disputed the amounts and refused some payments, leading to an eviction petition under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller held the tenant in …
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 tenant, Harrington House School, occupied an old, partially built property and ran an unrecognised private school. The landlords, who are builders, sought eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to demolish the dilapidated structure and …
The tenant held premises under a lease that required payment of monthly rent of Rs 100 and, additionally, Rs 111 as half of the annual property tax. The tenant failed to pay rent for January‑March 1990 and the agreed tax for three years. After a two‑month notice demanding the arrears, the tenant …
The landlady, who occupied a portion of a building for residential use, leased another portion to a tenant for non‑residential purposes. She sought eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need for the …
The tenant failed to pay rent for June 1983 to November 1984 and the landlord served a notice under the Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The tenant informed the landlord that the rent had been deposited in other court proceedings, but …
The landlords sought eviction of the tenants under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alleging non‑payment of rent and a denial of the landlords' title that was not bona‑fide. The tenants counter‑claimed that the municipal corporation, not the …
The Kerala Government issued two notifications under Section 25 of the Kerala Buildings (Land and Rent Control) Act, 1965 exempting buildings belonging to churches, mosques, dioceses, monasteries, convents, wakfs and madrasas from the Act's rent‑control and eviction provisions. The Kerala High Court …
The landlady, owner of Gomathi Lodge, filed eviction proceedings against several tenants seeking demolition and reconstruction of the premises under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and later amended the petition to claim additional accommodation under …
The landlords applied under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent of premises occupied by Shaw Wallace & Co. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority excluded a 1,752 sq.ft. area described as "platform and henpen" from the building, …
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming the building was dilapidated and needed reconstruction, and that he had sufficient funds. The Rent Controller, after an inspection, found the building not …
The appellant, a tenant, was evicted for using a shop for grocery business contrary to a rent deed that limited use to dealing in radios, cycles, fans, clocks and steel furniture. The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) …
Chordia Automobiles, a long‑time tenant, disputed an enhanced rent of Rs 1,000 per month that was conditioned on the landlord providing additional facilities, which the landlord failed to do. The landlord issued a notice on 9 August 1989 demanding the enhanced rent and, before the two‑month period …
The appellant, C. Chandramohan, derived ownership of three shops from his father’s release deed but did not inform the long‑standing tenants of this transfer. He later demanded higher rent and sought eviction for demolition, alleging wilful default in rent, denial of his title, and the need for …
Ram Doss purchased a building that was occupied by K. Thangavelu, who refused to acknowledge him as landlord and stopped paying rent. The Rent Controller, after examining the sale deed and rent accounts, held that a landlord‑tenant relationship existed and ordered eviction; the tenant's appeal was …
The appellant, S. Thangappan, was a tenant of premises used for an automobile workshop. The respondent, P. Padmavathy, filed an eviction petition under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alleging non‑payment of rent from October 1982 to May 1983, the need for demolition and …
The tenant J. Jermons stopped paying rent to his landlord after a Tax Recovery Officer issued a prohibitory order under the Income Tax Act, directing him to pay the rent to the tax authority instead. He later complied with a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act and paid the rent for the …
The appellant, a tenant, entered into a purchase agreement for the premises and paid a part‑payment, but the agreement was later repudiated and he filed a suit for specific performance. While the suit was pending, the new owner (respondent) filed an ejectment suit on the ground of arrears of rent. …
The appellant, a landlady, leased premises to the respondent with permission to sub‑let. The respondent defaulted on rent from September 1990 and, despite notices and multiple proceedings, failed to pay any arrears. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ordered eviction and directed the …
The respondent, Angamuthu Ammal, sought eviction of the appellant, K.V. Muthu, under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming personal need for herself and her foster son Arunachala Bakthar. The appellant contested, arguing that a foster son is not a "member of family" …
The landlady (respondent) sought eviction of the tenants (appellants) under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming she needed to demolish an old building to erect a new shopping complex. The Rent Controller found the landlord's requirement bona‑fide …
Adair Dutta & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., a tenant in a Madras building, challenged an order under Section 269 UD of the Income Tax Act that required surrender of possession after the building was purchased by the Central Government under Section 269 UE, which stated the property would vest free from all …
The tenant defaulted on rent for September‑November 1988 and, after receiving a notice, paid Rs.375 on December 7 and sent a bank draft of Rs.1125 covering the entire arrears on December 12, which the landlord did not encash and later deposited before the Rent Controller. The landlord filed an …
Super Forgings and Steels (P) Ltd., the tenant, appealed against an eviction order passed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The landlord, the late Thyambally Rasuljee, had sought possession on the ground that he did not occupy any building of …
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (as amended in 1988), which excludes premises with a monthly rent exceeding Rs 3,500 from the Act’s protection. The appellants argued that the classification was arbitrary, violated Article 14, …
The Supreme Court considered an eviction petition filed by the landlords against the tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alleging wilful default in rent and a change of use from residential to partly commercial. The tenant argued that rent was collected …
The respondent sued the appellant for possession of a building on the ground of wilful default in paying rent of Rs.900 per month. The appellant denied being a tenant, claiming to be a co‑sharer, but the lower courts held it was a tenant and decreed eviction. While the suit was pending, clause (ii) …
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming the building needed immediate demolition for reconstruction. The tenant contended the building was structurally sound and that the landlord’s motive was purely …
Miss Liza, the tenant, occupied a double‑storeyed building and paid Rs 170 per month. The landlady applied under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (as amended by Act 23 of 1973) for fixation of a fair rent. The Rent Controller, after an enquiry and based on a …
The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) acquired two properties on Mount Road, Madras, which had been leased to India Automobiles. LIC applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent, but the tenants argued that the lease covered only vacant land and that the superstructures they …
The appellant and respondent entered into a lease in 1936 for vacant land, a well and a structure called a "kaichalai" to operate a petrol pump. The lease was repeatedly extended, and the lessor later sought eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, claiming demolition …
The appellants, a partnership firm, were tenants of a shop in Madras and allegedly sublet the premises to another partnership firm, M/s. Adeshwar Glass Mart, without the landlord's consent. The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent …
Hameedia Hardware Stores, a partnership, was a tenant of both residential and non‑residential portions of a building owned by the respondent. After the lease expired, the respondent filed an eviction petition under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, …
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of sections 14(1)(b), 16(2) and 30(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alleging that they were arbitrary, discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The case arose from an eviction order under section …
The appellant, a tenant, occupied a room in the front portion of a residential building for non‑residential purposes. The landlord sought eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming the need for additional residential accommodation due to …
The appellant, a tenant occupying the ground floor of a one‑storey building as a godown, was evicted under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 after the landlord’s legatees claimed bona‑fide need for additional residential accommodation. The appellant …
The appellant-landlord filed an eviction suit in 1970 against the respondent-tenant under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alleging unlawful subletting. The subletting in question had been carried out in 1952 by the respondent's father, and the …
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 30(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which exempts residential buildings where the rent exceeds Rs 400 from the Act’s protections. They argued that the classification based on rent and residential status …
The Supreme Court examined several appeals concerning eviction petitions under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The central issue was the interpretation of "wilful default" in the proviso to section 10(2)(i) and its Explanation, which states that a default is wilful if it …
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 petitioners, tenants in a building owned by an Apex Co‑operative Society, challenged a 1976 notification issued under section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 which exempted all buildings owned by co‑operative societies from the Act’s provisions. They argued that …
The landlord filed seven eviction suits under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide personal requirement for the premises. The trial court decreed eviction against all tenants; the appellate authority upheld the decrees for the four ground‑floor shop …
The plaintiff, who inherited a building leased to the defendant in 1940, served a notice to quit and filed an eviction suit in March 1964, relying on the exemption in Section 30(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In June 1964 the Amendment Act removed that exemption …
