Legal Reference Library

Setting aside a Kerala High Court order, the Supreme Court, in Valiyavalappil Sarojakshan vs Sumalsankar Gaikevada, has held that merely because a landlord has taken possession on the basis of an order for eviction granted on one ground, that does not mean that the surviving grounds have become non-est. The landlord had approached the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of tenant under Section 11(4) (iii) and Section 11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court allowed the petitions under Sections 11(4) (iv) on the ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction, while declining eviction on the ground of tenant’s acquisition of alternate accommodation. The landlord, aggrieved by the Rent Control Court declining eviction under Section 11(4) (iii), approached the appellate authority. However, he also took possession of the buildings on the strength of order passed by the Rent Control Court on the other ground. Later, ...

The Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh Bawa vs. Asha Devi, has upheld an order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of tenanted premises for the business requirement of the son of the landlady. The High Court , while dismissing the revision petition, had held that there is no law which suggests that if a landlord/landlady requires the premises for running business of his/her young son who is an MBA graduate and is already engaged in some other business, he is acting malafidely and thus, no relief should be granted to him/her. The high court had also rejected the argument that the since the son is already a director in the family company, there is no bona fide need of the tenanted premises. With regard to plea of alternative premises, the High Court had observed: “It is not law that a petition for bona fide necessity does not lie because the husband of the landlady, who is carrying on a business on a premise,s must stop that business for a son who wants to open a new busines...

The Supreme Court in Gulshera Khanam vs. Aftab Ahmad, has held that any woman, married or unmarried, who has a legal right of residence in the building, is also included in the definition of “family” in relation to landlord, and is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from such building for her bonafide need. The Bench comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment that had held that Section 3(g)(iii) of the of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, includes only an “unmarried daughter” and that the landlord cannot seek eviction for the need of her married daughter.  The court interpreted the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which defines “family” in relation to landlord or tenant of a building to include (1) spouse (2) male lineal descendants (3) such parents, grandparents, unmarried or widowed or divorced o...

The Supreme Court has held that a farmer, who is in possession of leased land even after expiry of the lease period, cannot be evicted if the owner either acknowledges the tenancy or is accepting the rent. Referring to a provision of the Transfer of Property Act, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi set aside the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had ordered the eviction of a farmer after expiry of the lease period of the land. “The operation of section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act would confer legitimacy to the possession of the tenant even after the termination or expiration of the deemed period of the lease so as to confer on him a status akin to that of a statutory tenant and hence protection from eviction as envisaged by the provisions of the Act (Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act) of 1953,” the bench, also comprising Justices Arun Mishra and P C Pant, said. The bench said there was no legal provision to evict the farmers as ...

In a judgment that will shield parents against unruly and unsupportive children, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has given a new meaning to their relationship. The High Court has asserted that a son is a mere licensee putting up on the premises owned by his father. The District Magistrate is competent to order his eviction. The judgment by Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sneh Prashar came on a petition by Gurpreet Singh against his father and other respondents. The Bench said: “The petitioner is a licensee living on the premises on the basis of concession given by his father to live in the property owned by him. As a licensee, the petitioner is only permitted to enjoy the possession of the property licensed, but without creating any interest in the property. A licence stands terminated the moment the licensor conveys a notice of termination of the licence. There is no vested right of any kind in the licensee to remain in possession of the property licensed,” it said. Arti...