ANIL KUMAR DADURAO DHEKLE versus RUKHIBEN AND ORS.

ANIL KUMAR DADURAO DHEKLE versus RUKHIBEN AND ORS.

Tenants are liable to be evicted on three grounds: default in payment of rent under Section 12(3)(a), heirs not entitled to tenancy under Section 5(11)(c), and unlawful subletting. Material evidence establishes monthly tenancy and rent default for over six months. Neither heir carried on business with the original tenant; subletting is inferred from engagement of a worker with 50% charge sharing.

Parties
Appellant: Anil Kumar Dadurao Dhekale; Respondents: Rukhiben and Others (Manilal Ishwarbhai Valand, Dahyalal, Bhogilal, Somabhai Dahiyabhai Valand)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; eviction order by trial court restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction of Tenant, Default in Payment of Rent, Subletting Without Landlord's Permission, Statutory Tenancy After Death of Original Tenant
Rent Control Eviction of Tenant Default in Payment of Rent Subletting Without Landlord's Permission Statutory Tenancy After Death of Original Tenant

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anil Kumar Dadurao Dhekale

Appellant

Rukhiben and Others (Manilal Ishwarbhai Valand, Dahyalal, Bhogilal, Somabhai Dahiyabhai Valand)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenants are liable to be evicted for default in payment of rent under Section 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rent Control Act
  2. 2 Whether the heirs of the original tenant are entitled to the benefit of Section 5(11)(c)
  3. 3 Whether there was unlawful subletting of the premises

Ratio Decidendi

Tenants are liable to be evicted on three grounds: default in payment of rent under Section 12(3)(a), heirs not entitled to tenancy under Section 5(11)(c), and unlawful subletting. Material evidence establishes monthly tenancy and rent default for over six months. Neither heir carried on business with the original tenant; subletting is inferred from engagement of a worker with 50% charge sharing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; eviction order by trial court restored.

Orders

  • Respondents and any other persons inducted by them to handover vacant possession of premises within two months from date of judgment.
  • Failure to handover possession will render respondents liable for contempt of court.