A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Sections 106, 107—Kirayanama (Rent Agreement)—Unregistered and unilateral Kirayanama valid for collateral purposes to establish possession and landlord-tenant relationship though inadmissible to prove tenancy creation. (Paras 32, 37, 40, 41) B. Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act—Eviction Suit—Maintainability—Court may incidentally inquire into title to ascertain landlord-tenant relationship even if disputed by tenant; final title determination reserved for regular suit. (Paras 11, 46-49) C. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Second Appeal—Court to decide only framed substantial questions of law. (Para 41) D. Evidence Act, 1872—Section 101—Burden of Proof—Disputed Kirayanama signature requires defendant to seek expert ...

M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961—Sections 12(1)(c), 12(1)(m),—Eviction—Nuisance, Unauthorized Construction, Material Alteration—The first appellate court decreed eviction based on nuisance (unauthorized construction on terrace) and material alteration of the property, under Sections 12(1)(m) and 12(1)(o)—The tenant's defense of consent for the construction was unsupported by evidence—Although the appeal court’s decree on the ground of denial of title under Section 12(1)(c) was set aside, the decrees for nuisance and material alteration were affirmed—Compliance with the statutory notice under Section 12(1)(o) was found adequate, justifying eviction on this ground—The court reaffirmed the factual findings of the first appellate court and held that no substantial question of law a...

Landlord and Tenant—Suit for eviction—Property was owned by the municipality—The trial and appellate courts dismissed the suits, but the High Court decreed them—Tenants, in execution proceedings, argued the municipality's ownership, seeking non-executability—The High Court dismissed their petitions, stating the executing court couldn't question the decree's validity and tenants were estopped from denying the landlord's title—The High Court instructed swift decree execution—This decision underscores courts' reluctance to revisit decrees in execution proceedings, emphasizing the finality of judgments—It also highlights the principle of estoppel, barring tenants from challenging landlord title after prior acknowledgment—The ruling reaffirms the importance of adherence ...

Eviction—Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950—Section 14 (3) —Suit for eviction—Filed by appellant—On ground of bona fide necessity—Dismissed by trial Court—First Appeal—Allowed by Additional District Judge—This was based on stated admission of respondent that he had initially leased shop from one 'V' in 1958 and, thus, suit could not be said to be hit by restriction under Section 14 (3) of said Act—Second Appeal—Single Judge framed a preliminary question of maintainability Referred the matter to Larger Bench—Division Bench agreed with former interpretation—Finding that there was no ambiguity in language of Section 14 (3) of said Act—Which create a complete bar to filing suit—Legality and validity of—Supreme Court...

Eviction—Suit for eviction—Instituted by plaintiff against defendant—On averment that he is owner of said property by virtue of an agreement to sell—Power of attorney, a memo of possession and a receipt of payment of sale consideration as well as a "Will" of defendant bequeathing the said property in his favour—Defendant contested suit—On ground that aforesaid documents have been manipulated on blank papers—Trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff—Second Appeal—No substantial question of law involved in—High Court held that defendant cannot be permitted to raise such an issue—Validity of—Plaintiff admittedly settled with possessory title in part performance of agreement to sell—Defendant has lost his possession over it—Acquired right of possessi...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)  Section 341,  Transfer of Property Act, Section 106 Suit for eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property and for recovery of arrears of rent Material on record reveals that appellant/tenant has no respect to the rule of law and the orders passed by the Courts - Manner in which successfully a litigation is run for several years reminds a saying that the trend in the rental matters is that ‘fools build the houses and wise men live in it' Appellant being a tenant as per the  agreement, he can be in possession for a period of  two years  Appellant/tenant does not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant  No litigant shall be permitted to misuse the process of justice by filing frivolous petitions - Litigation which is started in the year 2010 i...

(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 2 (s), Section 17 and Section 26—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 1 R. 3, 9, 10—Daughter-in-law—Eviction suit by Father-in-law—Without impleading his son as party—Decreed by courts below—  Maintainability of—Father-in-law is the exclusive owner of the suit property—A divorce petition is pending between the son and Daughter-in-law—It is unfortunate that a doctor son had to leave the house because of strained relationship between husband and wife leaving his parents in old age, particularly, his mother being in such physically challenged—It would be even more unfortunate that under such circumstances the parents are compelled to seek decree of eviction against the son when the real relief is, in fact, being...

Suit for eviction—Default in payment of Rent—Case involves a landlord's suit for eviction of a tenant due to rent defaul—The tenant argued that the rent was fixed at a lower rate by the court, and they made some payments but not regularly—The court found that the tenant had not paid rent as required during the litigation and ordered eviction—The tenant's argument about willingness to pay arrears was rejected—The High Court's decision was set aside, and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises within one month. ...

Evidence Act, 1872—Section 68—The petitioner sought eviction of the tenant from a commercial property measuring 8 ft. x 10 ft—The petitioner claimed ownership of the property based on a registered Will executed by Mangalamma, which purportedly bequeathed the property to him—However, the tenant (respondent) denied the execution of the Will—The Court noted that the petitioner, as the legatee, had the burden of proving the Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872—No attempt was made by the petitioner to prove the Will, and the Court observed that where the validity of a Will is disputed, it is incumbent upon the proponent to prove the sound mind of the testator at the time of execution—Since the petitioner failed to meet th...

Evidence Act, 1872—Section 116—Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961—Section 12(1)—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 111—Landlord sought eviction of the tenant for denying her title to the property, as permitted under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act—Trial court and the first appellate court upheld the eviction, but the High Court set it aside—However, the Supreme Court reinstated the eviction, emphasizing that denial of the landlord's title falls within the scope of Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Act, and there was no perversity in the lower courts' findings. ...

Suit for eviction—Appellants have already taken possession of the suit premises through the execution proceeding. The High Court's judgment and order are set aside, and the appeal is disposed of. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC—Order 15 Rule 5, Order 15 Rule 5(1), Order 15 Rule 5(2), Order 8 Rule—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 227—Appellants filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant due to rent arrears and default—The respondent did not file a timely written statement and, after a delay, filed objections—The appellants sought to strike off the respondent's defense, as they had not complied with depositing rent, damages, water tax, and house tax—The Civil Judge struck off the defense, a decision upheld by the District Judge—The respondent filed a writ petition under Article 227, and the High Court allowed it, citing the court's discretion to accept the written statement even after 90 days from summons—The Supreme Court rul...

Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 13(1)(h)—Suit for eviction—Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the appellant-landlord initially sought eviction based on bonafide need. However, the need no longer existed due to the death of the involved parties. The court noted that a favorable verdict during their lifetime could have changed the situation. The parties, represented by their counsel, have reached a settlement. As per the agreement, the rent will be increased to Rs. 1500 per month, and the tenant will be allowed to continue occupying the premises for an additional three years. The appeal was allowed based on this settlement. ...

Registration Act, 1908—Sections 32 and 33—Dispute concerns a flat in Kolkata, purchased by the appellant through a registered deed of conveyance—The appellant's predecessor faced a suit for eviction, leading to the appellant filing a fresh suit after acquiring the property—The trial court dismissed the suit, citing non-compliance with Sections 32 and 33—The appellate court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing proper registration—The High Court overturned the decision, stating the power of attorney was not registered—The appellant appealed, arguing Section 32(a) applies, supported by precedents—The Supreme Court must determine if the person executing a document under a power of attorney is the actual executant for registration purposes under Section 32(a). ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 1 Rule 10, Section 151—Appellants, landlords, filed a suit for the eviction of the respondent, Smt—Sulata Ghosh, from a premises in Calcutta, citing grounds of default, damage to property, bonafide need, and subletting—After the death of the original parties, substitution applications were filed, and the trial court allowed the substitution of Bankim Ghosh as the legal representative of the deceased tenant—The High Court, however, held that the suit had abated due to a delay in bringing legal representatives on record—The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the substitution application was filed within time and duly amended—Regarding the subletting issue, the Court upheld the trial court's findings, stating it was a factual matter not subject to int...

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947—Section 13(1)(g)—Appellant, the owner of a flat in Mumbai, sought eviction of the respondent, relying on her bonafide personal need for the premises. The High Court set aside the Appellate Bench's order, stating that the changed circumstances indicated the appellant's co-ownership of another flat, thus diminishing her need. However, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the Appellate Bench's decision. It affirmed the finding of bonafide personal need, emphasizing the appellant's exclusive ownership of the sought premises. The Court rejected the notion that co-ownership elsewhere could negate the bonafide need. The appellant's right to reside in her own property prevailed, and the High Court's reliance on changed circumstances was ...

Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 106, Section 111, Section 113, Section 116—This special leave appeal challenges the High Court of Delhi's judgment in a review application related to the eviction of the appellant. The respondent terminated the lease and filed a suit for eviction. The appellant argued waiver of notice to quit under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act, citing the landlord's acceptance of rent post-notice. The court rejects the plea, stating that mere rent acceptance does not constitute an act showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. The court emphasizes that the landlord's pursuit of eviction proceedings indicates no waiver. The appeal is dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision. ...

...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 6 Rule 17, Section 115 - Suit for eviction—Appeal is granted, and the parties are heard on the merits of the eviction suit under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act—The appellant, facing eviction, initially claimed that Alamohan Dass was a licensee—Through an amendment application, the appellant sought to change this stance, asserting that Alamohan Dass was a recorded 'permissive occupier' and had surrendered his license, allowing the appellant's family to be granted a fresh license—The trial court rejected the amendment, citing an attempt to withdraw admissions—The High Court upheld this decision, adding that title-related questions were irrelevant in eviction proceedings—The Supreme Court, noting a similar allowed amendment in a related ca...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section—115—Suit for eviction based on bona fide need, the landlord had filed a case against the appellant tenant—The tenant contested, disputing the landlord's need—The District Judge found that the landlord's need was neither bona fide nor genuine, and on the issue of comparative hardship, determined that the tenant would suffer greater hardship if evicted—The High Court, in revision, reappreciated the evidence and found in favor of the landlord on both counts—The Supreme Court noted that the findings of the District Judge were pure questions of fact, not open to interference by the High Court—However, the Court agreed with the High Court that the landlord's bona fide need could be reexamined based on subsequent events alleged by the tenant&mdas...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 7 Rule 11—Prospective or Retrospective—Inclusion of Appeals—Tenant's Protection under Eviction Clause—The court, considering an appeal as a continuation of the suit, interprets the word "suit" to encompass appeals—Consequently, if the relevant clause in the Rent Act was not in force during the suit for eviction but is introduced during the appeal, the tenant gains entitlement to its protection—In the present case, despite a decree for eviction in the original suit, the matter was under challenge in an ongoing appeal proceeding arising from the same suit—As an appeal is a re-hearing of the suit, it is incorrect to assert that no proceedings were filed or pending against the tenant on the specified date—Thus, the tenant is afforded the...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 109—Suit for eviction—Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the appellants sought eviction of the respondents—The first respondent, in arrears of rent and having failed to comply with Section 12 of the Act, faced potential eviction—The court held that not only the first respondent but also the second respondent, assuming he is a sub-tenant, would be liable to eviction—While Section 14 of the Act uses the expression 'subject to the provisions of this Act,' it does not merely mean that a sub-tenant would become subject to the Act after becoming the direct tenant—Instead, it means that a sub-tenant cannot become a direct tenant on all grounds of eviction against the main tenant but depends on the nature of the eviction ground p...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 115—Suit for eviction—Appellants, owners of leased premises, filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the tenant, one of the sons of the original tenant—The trial court partially dismissed the suit, granting only rent recovery—The appellate court later decreed the suit, finding the landlord's need genuine and noting the tenant's rent default—However, the High Court set aside the judgment, stating that non-impleadment of all heirs of the original tenant rendered the suit defective—The appellants argued that joint tenancy existed among the heirs and impleading one was sufficient representation—Additionally, they contended that, post a subsequent lease, the other heirs' tenancy rights were implicitly surrendered—The Suprem...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article—227—Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947—Section—12(3)(a)—Suit for eviction, the High Court considers whether a loan taken by the tenant from the landlord could be adjusted against rent arrears, thereby negating the default—The tenant, in possession for over 35 years, requests a two-year period to vacate the commercial premises—Despite an undertaking, the tenant has relinquished part of the premises—The appeal is allowed, indicating a need for compliance with the undertaking and granting the tenant's request for vacating the premises within two years. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 30 Rule 1, Order 30 Rule 10, Order 30 Rule 4—Decree Against Deceased Proprietor Null and Void—Suit for eviction filed against a proprietary concern and two individuals, where the proprietor had died on the date of institution of the suit and the proprietary concern was not in existence, any decree passed against the deceased proprietor is null and void—The decree cannot be executed, and the provisions of Rule 4 of Order 30, which state that legal representatives of a deceased party need not be impleaded, do not apply in such circumstances—The absence of the deceased proprietor's legal representatives renders the decree unenforceable, as it was deemed to have been instituted against a deceased person—Therefore, the decree passed in such a situation is considered...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 100, Section 100(4)—Suit for eviction—In a landlord-tenant eviction dispute, the plaintiff, claiming to be the landlord, sought eviction of the defendant, the tenant, based on a tenancy agreement—The plaintiff alleged ownership of the property inherited from the late Maharaja Udaibhan Singh, which was disputed by the defendant—The plaintiff, relying on a certified copy of a deed of adoption, claimed to be the adopted son of the late Maharaja—The trial court and the first appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the denial of title by the defendant constituted grounds for eviction and that the plaintiff's need for the property was genuine—However, the High Court overturned these findings, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court&mdash...

...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 105—Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882—Section 41—Suit for eviction filed by plaintiffs against defendants—Trial Court decreed suit, defendants appealed—Appellate Court dismissed suit, plaintiffs appealed—High Court allowed plaintiffs' appeal, restoring Trial Court's decree—Appeal allowed in part, matter remitted to High Court for clarification—Defendants entitled to challenge interlocutory orders in appeal—Clarification sought on extension of Tenants Protection Act to Salem town and effect of rescinding—Further consideration directed. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41 Rule 27—suit for eviction—In this case, the tenant's revision application challenges the judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Jhansi, which decreed the landlord's suit for eviction, arrears of rent, and damages for use and occupation at Rs.3,500 per month—The tenant argued that the building, constructed in 1976, had completed more than 10 years by the time of the suit, making it exempt from the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—The court determined that the building’s construction completion should be assessed based on municipal records or actual occupation, not merely the landlord's assertions—It found the building was first occupied by the tenant on October 1, 1978, and thus, the 10-year ...

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226—Validity of a permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 3 of the U—P— (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for filing an ejectment suit— The appellant landlord sought to evict the respondent tenant, having obtained the required permission from the Officer, whose decision was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner— The trial and appellate courts had initially ruled in favor of the appellant— However, the High Court overturned these decisions, citing a Full Bench ruling that required consideration of the tenant's needs in the Officer's decision— The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in allowing this challenge, as the Officer's decision, once final under Section 3(4) and Section 16, could ...