Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court, in Pawan Kumar Gupta vs BR Gupta, has held that condonation of delay in payment of rents can take place only when defaulting tenant so pleads with justifiable reasons which would show that he was prevented from compliance by circumstances beyond his control. In the instant case, in 2005, an order was passed by the rent controller directing the tenant to pay or deposit the rent with effect from 1.10.2004, and continue to pay the same at the aforesaid rate month by month. The tenant did not comply with the order. Observing that the tenant failed to provide any explanation regarding delay in depositing of rent month by month in terms of the order, the rent controller held that he was not entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act and an eviction order was passed. The high court upheld this order refusing to condone the delay in payment of rents. An apex court bench comprising Justice J Chelameswar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer observed that the tenant was...

The Supreme Court, in Om Prakash vs Mishri Lal (Deceased), has reiterated that a co-owner can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object. The court made this observation in an appeal preferred against the high court order which had upheld a Rent Control Authority order negating the appellants’status of that of a landlord. “The judicially propounded proposition is that when the property forming the subject matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several co-owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and thus it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner of the property,” a bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy said. Setting aside the high court order, the court observed that the appellants being the son of the original landlord, their status as landlords for the purpose of eviction under the Uttar Pradesh ...

In Nandkishor Savalaram Malu (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Hanumanmal G. Biyani (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., the matter was eviction of a partnership firm which was the lessee/tenant and whether employees as well as the partners have to be made parties to the suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that " we are of the considered opinion that neither the Firm nor their partners and nor defendant no.1 had any legal right to remain in possession of the suit house. The reason being that so far as the Firm and its partners were concerned (defendant Nos. 2 to 9), they being the tenant rightly suffered the decree for payment of arrears of rent and eviction under the Rent Act and so far as defendant no.1 was concerned, he was neither an owner of the suit house nor a tenant inducted by the appellants and nor a licensee but was held to be an employee of the Firm and a rank trespasser in the suit house. 24) The legal effect of such eviction decree under the Rent Act was that the possessio...

The Supreme Court in Rajender Bansal & Ors. Vs. Bhuru (D), has held that a civil court would not cease to have jurisdiction to try a pending suit of eviction if the suit property came under the notified area during pendency of the suit. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice NV Ramana summarised the following principles laid down in several decisions like Mansoor Khan Vs. Moti Ram and Atma Ram Mittal Vs. Ishwar Singh Punia: * Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the law applicable on the date of filing of the suit will continue to apply until suit is disposed of or adjudicated. *If during the pendency of the suit, the Rent Act becomes applicable to the premises in question, that would be of no consequence and it would not take away the jurisdiction of civil court to dispose of a suit validly instituted. *In order to oust the jurisdiction of civil court, there must be a specific provision in the Act taki...

The Supreme Court in M/S PARK STREET PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD.  VS. DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & ANR has held that the phrase ‘contract to the contrary’ in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act means a ‘valid contract’ and it cannot be read to mean that the parties are free to contract out of the express provisions of the law, thereby defeating its very intent. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Kumar Goel restored the Judgment of Trial Court which had decreed the suit of Landlords for recovery and Khas possession. As per the agreement, the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy only in case there was a breach of the terms of the agreement or in case of non-payment of rent for three consecutive months and the tenants failed to remedy the same within a period of thirty days of the receipt of the notice. The notice issued by Landlord requiring it to vacate the premises was contested by the Tenants terming it as illegal. This contention, though ini...

The Allahabad High Court in Rashmi Bhatiya vs. Geeta Sharma has held that, Release application cannot be filed by Power of Attorney on the ground of his bonafide need, but there is no express prohibition under the Rent Act debarring the owner-landlord from applying for release through Power of Attorney holder. Difference between filing of a Release application by a “Power of Attorney of a Landlord” and that by a “Landlord through Power of Attorney” is explained in this Judgment rendered by Justice Pankaj Mithal for Allahabad High Court. Through a writ petition, the tenants had challenged the judgment of Rent control Authority, contending that Release application was filed by the power of attorney holder of the landlady and, as such, was not maintainable. BONAFIDE NEED URGED HAS TO BE OF LANDLORD OR HIS FAMILY The High Court held: “Section 21 of the Rent Act envisages an application of the landlord for eviction of a tenant if the premises is bona fide required by him for occupation by h...

a) issue in relation to revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in rent matters; b) the scope of inquiry to examine the title of the landlord of the suit premises in eviction matters; c) whether all the co-owners/co- landlords of suit premises are necessary parties in the eviction petition filed under the Rent Laws d) law relating to power of attorney executed by principal in favour of his agent. 1) High Court while hearing revision petition arising out of eviction matter is concerned, it remains no more res integra and stands settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78. Justice R.M. Lodha, the learned Chief Justice. High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first ap...

Right to appeal is not inherent but created by statute Writ–C No 40360 of 2015 Yogesh Agarwal Vs Estate Officer & 2 Ors With Writ–C No 42744 of 2015 B M Nayar Vs Estate Officer & 2 Ors With Writ–C No 41568 of 2015 Anil Tripathi Vs Estate Officer & 2 Ors And Writ–C No 42745 of 2015 Rajiv Kumar @ Kukku Vs Estate Officer & Anr Appearance: For the petitioners: Mr K K Arora, Advocate Mr Akhtar Ali, Advocate For the respondents: Mr Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate, ASGI Mr Satish Kumar Rai, Senior Panel Counsel, Central Government Mr Krishna Agrawal, Central Government Counsel Mr P S Pandey, Central Government Counsel Hon'ble Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, CJ Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J Dated: 12/1/16 Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Yogesh Agarwal vs. Union of India has held that eviction order passed under Section 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is not a...