Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
12 judgments · newest first · showing 1–12
The appellant, a landlord, sought eviction of a tenant who had occupied a cinema building in Allahabad since 1952 under a ten‑year lease that had long expired. The Prescribed Authority had allowed eviction on the ground of bona‑fide need, noting the landlord's limited income, his crippled son’s …
The appellants, landladies, obtained permission under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 to evict a tenant on the ground of a bona‑fide requirement to shift a nursing home. The suit filed on that permission was later withdrawn without any liberty to re‑file. …
The appellant, a tenant, was required under Section 39 of the U.P. (Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to deposit arrears, interest and costs within one month to avoid eviction. He deposited Rs 1,944 instead of the required Rs 2,048 due to a calculation error, leaving …
The landlord Suresh Chand let a premises completed in 1967 to tenant Gulam Chisti and filed an eviction suit on 27 May 1972, before the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force on 15 July 1972. The tenant later deposited the arrears of rent and costs …
The appellants, tenants of a premises in Bijnor, were sued for eviction in 1967 under the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, on the ground that they had made material alterations to the building. Lower courts held the alterations were material and ordered eviction; the …
The tenant A.C. Duti challenged the order of the Appellate Authority that allowed the landlord to recover possession of the ground floor of a three‑storey house on the ground of the landlord's own requirement. The landlord had previously applied for eviction in 1967 under the 1947 Rent Act, which …
The landlord obtained permission to evict tenants under Section 3 of the 1947 U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, which became final after a rejected revision. He filed a suit for eviction, which was later dismissed on a technical ground. Subsequently, relying on Section 43(2)(rr) of …
Om Prakash was a tenant of a premises in Meerut Cantonment, leased for a dal and oil mill. After the landlords purchased the building, they sued for eviction under Section 14(c) of the U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act, 1952, alleging that the tenant had made a partition wall and a tin shed that …
The appellant, a former government telephone employee, had taken a house on lease in 1954 and continued to occupy it after retirement in 1967. Respondent S.P. Pathak applied to the House Allotment Officer for possession, alleging the appellant occupied the premises in violation of Clause 22(2) of …
Harcharan Singh, a tenant of a shop in a U.P. cantonment, failed to pay rent for 1965‑66. The landlord sent a combined notice of arrears and eviction by registered post on 9 November 1966, which the tenant refused to accept on 10 November. The landlord sued for eviction under the U.P. Cantonment …
Pradesh Kumar Bajpai, the landlord, sued Binod Behari Sarkar for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits. The tenant argued that, despite the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act being applicable, he was entitled to the relief under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property …
Ram Deo, the tenant, entered into a compromise agreement on 13 June 1960 to pay Rs.600 of pre‑agreement rent arrears in monthly instalments of Rs.25 each, alongside Rs.25 of current rent. He later fell into arrears and the landlord, Umrao Singh, served a notice demanding Rs.150, of which Rs.75 …
