Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Karnataka rent act, 1999

SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS versus M/S MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS & ORS.

The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 by reappreciating evidence and substituting its findings; the landlord discharged the initial burden by proving exclusive possession of third parties and absence of the original tenant, giving rise to a presumption of unlawful sub-letting which the respondents failed to rebut; the alleged partnership reconstitution was a cloak to conceal unlawful transfer of possession and thus amounted to unlawful sub-letting/assignment under ss.27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, warranting eviction.

Source excerpt

  • Revisional jurisdiction under section 46
  • Unlawful sub-letting
  • Burden of proof in eviction proceedings
  • Partnership and sub-letting
  • Eviction under ss.27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p)
  • Lifting the veil of partnership
Read case analysis
Landlord and tenant law

BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF versus ASHWIN BHANULAL DESAI

On a prima facie view of the record the tenant had delayed payment of rent and other dues; the lease stood forfeited/determined by reason of alleged non-payment and an unchallenged independent valuer’s report fixed the market occupational rate at INR 41 per sq.ft. To protect the landlord’s entitlement to monetary benefits of the property during the pendency of the SLPs and in exercise of incidental/equitable jurisdiction, the Court directed the respondent to deposit Rs.5,15,05,512 with the Registry within four weeks, subject to the final outcome of the Special Leave Petitions.

Source excerpt

  • Mesne profit
  • Occupational charges
  • Forfeiture/determination of lease
  • Possession
  • Valuation/market rent
Read case analysis
Rent control

BAITULLA ISMAIL SHAIKH AND ANR. versus KHATIJA ISMAIL PANHALKAR AND ORS.

The High Court correctly concluded there was no satisfaction as required by Section 16(2) for bona fide requirement under Section 16(1)(g), the landlords failed to comply with mandatory conditions of Section 16(6) for claims under Section 16(1)(i)/(j), and the municipal demolition notice did not establish the required immediacy for eviction under Section 16(1)(k); accordingly the revisional court properly set aside the eviction decrees and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.

Source excerpt

  • Notices of eviction
  • Reasonable and bona fide requirement
  • Demolition notice
  • Comparative hardship
  • Tenancy jurisprudence
  • Sections 15 and 16 of maharashtra rent control act, 1999
Read case analysis
Rent control

RAVI KHANDELWAL versus M/S. TALUKA STORES

Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is designed to protect a tenant for five years, and where proceedings have continued beyond that period (38 years in this case) the initial defect of instituting the suit within five years is washed away; accordingly the High Court's contrary view was set aside and the first appellate decree of eviction was affirmed, with directions for possession.

Source excerpt

  • Interpretation of section 14(3) of the rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950
  • Whether five-year bar prevents institution of suit or only passing of decree
  • Bona fide necessity
  • Cure of procedural defect by passage of time
Read case analysis
Landlord and tenant

MAN SINGH versus SHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS

Where a landlord who had earlier refused to accept rent subsequently serves a notice of demand expressing willingness to accept it, the tenant must tender the rent to the landlord and cannot continue to deposit it in Court under Section 30(1); failure to tender the rent to the landlord after such notice may justify eviction even if the tenant had been depositing the admitted rent in Court. On the facts, although the High Court found the oral enhancement unproved and fixed the rent at Rs.250 per month, the tenant failed to tender that rent to the landlord after notice and the eviction decree w…

Source excerpt

  • Deposit of rent in court
  • Notice of demand
  • Section 30 uttar pradesh urban buildings act 1972
  • Section 20(4) uttar pradesh urban buildings act 1972
  • Oral agreement for enhancement of rent
  • Effect of deposit in court on arrears
Read case analysis
Landlord and tenant law

GOPI @ GOVERDHANNATH (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus SRI BALLABH VYAS

Where the landlord produced a registered sale deed (Ext.P3) in his favour, the tenants' mere oral assertion that their predecessor purchased the property for Rs.15,000 in 1985 without producing admissible documentary evidence failed to discharge their burden and made their denial of title mala fide; concurrent findings of mala fides and bona fide requirement for possession were lawful and not perverse, entitling the landlord to eviction under the Act, subject to a short period for vacating in the interest of justice.

Source excerpt

  • Eviction
  • Title dispute
  • Registration of sale deed
  • Bona fide denial of title
  • Adverse possession
  • Possession for personal use
Read case analysis
Rent control

SHABBIR MOHAMMAD SAYED versus MRS. NOOR JEHAN MUSHTER SHAIKH & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the assignments relied upon by the appellant were illegal under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Tenancy Act, 1999 unless a contract to the contrary or valid ratification by the landlord is established; no ratification or contract to the contrary was proved, the appellant's competing accounts of possession were irreconcilable and the execution application under Order XXI Rule 97 was rightly rejected; accordingly there was no merit to interfere with the High Court order and the appeals were dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Section 26 maharashtra rent control tenancy act, 1999
  • Ratification under contract act, 1872
  • Lis pendens and section 52 transfer of property act
  • Registration of tenancy agreements under section 55 tenancy act
  • Order xxi rule 97 cpc
  • Registration under indian registration act, 1908
Read case analysis
Property law

SHANKARLAL NADANI versus SOHANLAL JAIN

Because the suit for possession was instituted on 18.4.2013, before the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 became applicable to the area (notification effective 11.5.2015), the civil court retained jurisdiction to decide the suit and the decree for possession passed by the civil court is valid and executable; the Act does not retrospectively bar suits or decrees pending on the date it became applicable.

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction of rent tribunal vs civil court
  • Applicability and commencement of statute
  • Execution of decree
  • Tenant-landlord disputes
  • Rights crystallising on date of institution of suit
  • Section 106 transfer of property act
Read case analysis
Tenancy law

HEERA TRADERS versus KAMLA JAIN

Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (as substituted in 1983) does not, by mere compliance (deposit/payment) automatically stay or render inexecutable an eviction decree; payment under Section 13 does not reinstate tenant status once an eviction decree has been passed, the erstwhile tenant becomes an unauthorised occupant and may be required by an appellate court under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC to deposit a reasonable sum (including mesne profits or an amount not limited to the agreed rent) as condition for stay of execution.

Source excerpt

  • Interpretation of section 13 of the madhya pradesh accommodation control act, 1961
  • Stay of execution of eviction decrees
  • Mesne profits
  • Order xli rule 5 cpc
  • Effect of eviction decree on tenant status
Read case analysis
Rent control

PADAM NABH & SONS versus YASH PAL

Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act must be read such that a NRI who becomes owner of premises occupied by a tenant inducted earlier becomes the owner immediately and, upon attornment, the premises become 'let out by him'; however the proviso requires that the NRI owner must wait five years from the date of becoming owner before invoking summary eviction under Section 13-B(1). The Constitution Bench decision in Nathi Devi (construing analogous Delhi Act provisions) is not applicable to Section 13-B because of material differences in language and scope between the Delhi…

Source excerpt

  • Interpretation of section 13-b east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949
  • Eviction
  • Non-resident indian (nri) owners
  • Meaning of 'let out by him'
  • Attornment and creation of landlord-tenant relationship
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.