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 Bhagirath Agarwal vs M/s Simplex Concrete & Piles (I) Pvt. Ltd, has held that once the court permits the tenant to pay arrears of rent in installments, there is no discretion available with the court to deny interest of the same to the landlord. A bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R Banumathi set aside the order of the trial court that denied interest for the arrears of rent payable to the landlord and allowed the tenants to pay the arrears in installments. Referring to Section 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the bench said whenever payment of rent, including arrears, is permitted to be paid in installments, the statute contemplates that the beneficiary shall be granted interest This is irrespective of the justification or explanation, if any, available for the non-payment, the bench added. The court also observed that though under Section 34, the said amount can be set off, in case the landlord has refused to provi...

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 ...

The Supreme Court, in Nidhi Vs. Ram Kripal Sharma, has held that the marriage of a landlady as subsequent event cannot extinguish the bona fide requirement of a landlady urged in a release application filed prior to her marriage. Being married and shifting to other place does not automatically result in extinguishing of bona fide requirement of the appellant, as being the owner of property, she alone is to decide what she wants to do with her property, a bench comprising  Justice Dipak Misra and Justice R Banumathi observed, while setting aside a high court order, which had held otherwise. The court observed that for the purpose of coming to the conclusion on bona fide need of the landlord, comparative hardship to the parties will have to be taken into consideration.  The bench said the landlady has established her bona fide requirement for accommodating her parents and grandparents in the suit premises and merely because she got married amidst the proceedings, it d...

Our conclusions are crystallised as under: (i) The words “for his own use” as occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 must receive a wide, liberal and useful meaning rather than a strict or narrow construction. (ii) The expression — landlord requires for “his own use”, is not confined in its meaning to actual physical user by the landlord personally. The requirement not only of the landlord himself but also of the normal “emanations” of the landlord is included therein. All the cases and circumstances in which actual physical occupation or user by someone else, would amount to occupation or user by the landlord himself, cannot be exhaustively enumerated. It will depend on a variety of factors such as interrelationship and interdependence — economic or otherwise, between the landlord and such person in the background of social, socio-religious and local customs and obligations of the society or region to which they belong. (iii) The te...

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 Nandkishor Savalaram Malu vs. Hanumanmal G. Biyani, has held that when a partnership firm is the tenant, then an employee of the firm is not a necessary party to the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice AM Sapre held that such persons since claim through the firm, they have no right of their own in the tenancy and in the demised property qua landlord. The trial court, though passed decree against the firm and its partners, found that no eviction decree can be passed against the employee of the partnership firm as he was in an unauthorised occupation of the suit house as a trespasser. Liberty to file a separate suit against the employee was granted to the landlord. On an appeal by landlord, the First Appellate Court held that being an employee of the firm, he was bound by the decree passed against the firm and its partners. The high court, exercising its revisional powers, restored the trial court order se...

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 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...

The Supreme Court in Sudhakaran vs. Corporation of Kochi has held that the requirement of consent of landlord is applicable only when a person intends to obtain a licence for the first time and not for Renewal or subsequent application for obtaining licence on expiry of the period of the existing licence, during the currency of the tenancy. The Apex Court bench comprising of Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Kumar Goel set aside the Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court, where in it was held that that the consent of the owner of the premises is necessary for renewal of tenant’s licence for running a hardware shop. The Court upheld the order of Tribunal, which had held that renewal cannot be refused only on the ground that the fresh consent was not produced by the statutory tenant. The tenant who had applied for renewal of licence to run a hardware shop was refused by Village Panchayath on the ground that he did not produce ‘consent’ from the land lord. The Tribunal for Local S...

Setting aside the orders of National and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions which had held that a complainant land owner who entered into an agreement with a builder for construction and sharing flats, is not a ‘consumer’ since there was an intention to sell them and let them on rent and earn profit, the Supreme Court (BUNGA DANIEL BABU VS. M/S SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS) held that such an approach is erroneous. The District forum had allowed the complaint of the Land owner against the builder. On appeal by the Builder, the State Commission observed that the agreement was entered into by the complainant for more than two plots and there was an intention to sell them and let them on rent and earn profit, and the transaction was meant for a commercial purpose. The claims of land owner was dismissed on the grounds that he is not a ‘consumer’. This order of State Commission was affirmed by the National Commission. The complainant approached the Supreme Court. Apex Court Bench co...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.167 OF 2007 M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & Anr. ……Appellant(s) VERSUS Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors. ……Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 06.09.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 5228 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment dated 17.09.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 93 of 1998 and restored the judgment dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Principal Rent Controller Secunderabad in R.C. No. 165 of 1993. 2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief infra. 3) The premises bearing No. 9-3-692 to 694, Regimenta...

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...

1) Lucknow Development Authority vs. M. K. Gupta [1994 (1) SCC 243] 2) Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa [2004 (8) SCC 733 3) New Horizons Ltd vs. Union of India [1995 (1) SCC 478) Faqir Chand Gulati vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2008 A joint venture is frequently defined as an association of two or more persons formed to carry out a single business enterprise for profit. More specifically, it is in association of persons with intent, by way of contract, express or implied, to engage in and carry out a single business venture for joint profit, for which purpose such persons combine their property, money, effects, skill, and knowledge, without creating a partnership, a corporation or other business entity, pursuant to an agreement that there shall be a community of interest among the parties as to the purpose of the undertaking, and that each joint venturer must stand in the relation of principal, as well as agent, as to ...

14. The maintainability of writ petition in a matter of landlord-tenant dispute was considered by this Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329. In the said case, this Court noticed the scope of interference by the High Court in civil matters/private disputes under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and held that the High Court committed an error in entertaining writ petition in a dispute between landlord and tenant and where the only respondent is a private landlord. 15. Nature and scope of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was considered by this Court in Jai Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, (2010) 9 SCC 385. In the said case, this Court held: .....The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India Jacky vs Tiny @ Antony & Ors on 9 April, 2014 Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Muk...