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...

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 Munshi Lal vs. Smt. Santosh, has observed that if a tenant enters into a partnership agreement with his son-in-law and allows him to occupy the tenanted premises, without obtaining the consent of the landlord, it cannot be said that there is no parting of possession. The high court in the instant case had upheld the view taken by the appellate authority, which had relied on Smt. Krishnawati Vs. Shri Hans Raj (1974) 1 SCC 289, in which it was held that in an arrangement where the premises was rented by the husband, and the wife was allowed to carry out business in a part of the premises, would not amount to subletting. “In this case, the relationship is not like that of a spouse being allowed to carry out a business in the same house. The relationship is of a son-in-law and father-in-law who had entered into a partnership agreement,” a bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice L Nageswara Rao said. The court, referring to provisions of the Delhi Rent Contr...

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...

The Supreme Court, in Behram Tejani vs. Azeem Jagani, has reiterated that a person holding the premises gratuitously or in the capacity as a caretaker or a servant would not acquire any right or interest on the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequences. The bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit restored a city civil court order, which had rejected the prayer for interim injunction restraining the defendants from from dis-possessing plaintiff from the suit premises without following due process of law. It was the case of defendants that the maternal grand-mother of the plaintiff was merely allowed to use and occupy the suit premises by the defendants out of love and sympathy without any fees or compensation and that the suit premises belonged to them. Setting aside the high court order, the court referred to Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRS, wherein ...

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...

Rent Law; Shahul Hameed Vs. P.E. Abdu Razak [Kerala High Court, 25-11-2016] Contents Stair Case Room Section 11(2)(b) and (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardar Dastur School Trust, AIR 2005 SC 996 Raghunath G.Panhale v. Chaganlal Sunderji, AIR 1999 SC 3864 Rent Control & Eviction – When a tiny room only is required for the landlord, he need not forgo a monthly rent by occupying a spacious room. Rent Control & Eviction – A lazy trader cannot be considered to be a person solely or mainly depending for his livelihood on the income derived from his business. Rent Control & Eviction – In all cases tenants need not prove their precise income. But evidence must be produced to prove the approximate income. Rent Control & Eviction – If the tenant has only one source of income, he should prove that he is getting an income with which he can live. He cannot be heard to say that he need not produce any evidence to prov...

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 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...

In A. Talukdar & Company (Fertilizer) Private Limited Vs. Respondent: The Official Liquidator, High Court of Calcutta and Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that If an order to wind up a company is recalled and the company is revived, it is entitled to get back from the official liquidator its entire assets. Tenants who occupied the premises during the proceedings shall go out. The company court can evict them.

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...

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 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...

Tenants protected from creditors In a judgment that grants relief to tenants, the Supreme Court has declared that the provisions of the Securitisation Act (Sarfaesi) cannot be used to override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court, while setting aside judgments in several cases of the Bombay High Court, underlined that the Rent Control Act is a social welfare legislation and must be construed as such. In the case, Vishal Kalsaria vs Bank of India, the court further explained that while Sarfaesi is concerned with non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions, the Rent Control Act governs the relationship between a tenant and the landlord and specifies the rules of ejectment with respect to tenants. The banks had proceeded to take possession of the properties of landlords, who had defaulted on payments for the loans taken by mortgaging the properties. The tenants were caught in between. "If the contentions of the banks are to be accepted," ...