Tag: Rent Control

Law is a Force for Justice, Not Absurdity: Supreme Court on Rent Arrears Eviction Case
Supreme Court

Law is a Force for Justice, Not Absurdity: Supreme Court on Rent Arrears Eviction Case

The Supreme Court held that in appeals challenging eviction orders under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings Act, the Appellate Authority is not required to mandatorily re-initiate the entire Section 12 procedure. The deposit of admitted arrears, as determined by the Rent Controller, is a precondition to contest the appeal, unless supervening events warrant a fresh application. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are landlords who filed eviction petitions against the respondent-tenant for two shops in Kochi, alleging non-payment of rent since early 2020. The Rent Controller, relying on a prior money decree for arrears, passed orders under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings Act, directing the tenant to pay substantial outstanding and future rents. Upon the tenant's failure to comply, e...
Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases
Supreme Court

Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases

The Supreme Court clarified that a counsel’s “no instruction” pursis does not equate to withdrawal of vakalatnama under the Advocates Act or Civil Manual. Absent a formal withdrawal, the court is not obligated to issue fresh notice; a litigant’s failure to instruct counsel cannot invalidate proceedings. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was deemed unwarranted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shri Digant, filed a civil suit in 2014 against the respondents, M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The defendants were initially served summons, and after they failed to appear, the suit proceeded ex parte. Upon applications, these ex parte orders were later recalled, and the defendants filed written statements. Duri...
Tenant Evicted for Wilful Default: Supreme Court Upholds Rent Arrears Ruling
Supreme Court

Tenant Evicted for Wilful Default: Supreme Court Upholds Rent Arrears Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, ruling that the lessee’s failure to pay the statutorily fixed fair rent—despite not seeking a stay of the fair rent order—constituted wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, 1960. The Court affirmed that pending appeals do not automatically suspend the tenant’s obligation to pay determined rent. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a lease agreement dated 11.10.1999, whereby M/s. Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. (landlord) leased portions of a godown in Coimbatore to K. Subramanian (tenant) for a total monthly rent of Rs. 48,000. The tenant, however, contended the rent was only Rs. 33,000. In 2004, the landlord applied for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller, on 10.01.2007, fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,43,6...
Tenant Can’t Deny Landlord’s Title, Rules Supreme Court in Key Eviction Case
Supreme Court

Tenant Can’t Deny Landlord’s Title, Rules Supreme Court in Key Eviction Case

The Supreme Court held that in an eviction suit, strict proof of ownership is not required. A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title under whom they entered possession. The Will bequeathing the property, especially when probated, confers sufficient legal sanctity to maintain the eviction proceedings. The bona fide need of the landlord was also upheld. Facts Of The Case: The dispute involves a shop room tenancy initiated in 1953 by Ramji Das, the appellant's father-in-law, with the father of the respondents. Upon Ramji Das's death in 1999, a Will bequeathed the shop to the appellant, Jyoti Sharma. She subsequently filed a suit for eviction on grounds of bona fide need, seeking to expand her husband's adjacent sweets business, and for recovery of rent arrears from January 2000. Th...
Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline

This Supreme Court held that the time limit under Section 7(1) and (2) of the WBPT Act for depositing admitted rent and filing an application is mandatory and cannot be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The proviso to Section 7(2) only permits an extension for paying the amount determined by the court post-adjudication, not for the initial statutory deposit and application. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School, is a tenant in a premises in Kolkata for which the admitted monthly rent was Rs. 1090. The respondents, the landlords, filed an ejectment suit on 11.06.2019 on grounds including arrears of rent. The summons for this suit was served upon the appellant-tenant on 29.09.2022. The statutory period of 30 days for compliance und...