Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court also affirmed interpretation of Rule 6 by Delhi High Court in ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood, wherein the High Court had held that Rule 6 gives a wide discretion to the Court.
Supreme Court clarified that till the date of communication of the order on the regularisation application, the limited interim relief granted on 6-08-2024 will continue to operate.
Supreme Court initially took up this matter on 6-08-2024 and stayed the demolition of the subject premises of petitioner till 9-08-2024.
‘Eviction proceedings under Section 16(1)(i) and (k) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 have different degrees of urgency, the former has a lesser degree of urgency than later, and it is within the jurisdiction of the Court to test this factor.’
“The petitioner/tenant is not able to demonstrate the extreme hardship caused to him upon vacating the premises in dispute. The litigation has consumed 10 years and thus, the hardship suffered by the respondent/landlord is more than the tenant.”
“A tenant or the Court cannot direct the landlord how and in what manner he should live/ arrange affairs. There is no bar which can restrict a landlord from beneficial enjoyment of his own property”
“What the tenants really seek is not just a right to dictate the terms of that tenancy beyond anything the law contemplates, but to impermissibly expand tenancy rights to the prejudice of the property owner — without taking the slightest steps to acquire those ownership rights.”
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.
There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsity on a matter of substance and the Court must be satisfied and there must be reasonable foundation for the charge and the prosecution of the offender is necessary in the interest of justice.
“Politicians play an influential role in the life of a common man. The words and actions of a politician has an impact on his followers, party men and public at large. It is imperative that this power is not to be misused for illegal and personal gains”
Supreme Court held that not putting a quietus to the prolonged dispute at hand, spanning 38 years, on something as simple as tenancy issue, would be a travesty of justice.
The landlord was offered the possession of the suit property which was refused by him on the pretext of damage to the suit property, whereas no evidence has been adduced by him about damage to the suit property except his bald statements.
The Supreme Court said that before examining the defendants’ ground of res judicata to oppose the eviction petition, several aspects may have to be looked into, like whether such an issue was substantively at issue in the previous suit and similar such other questions may crop up.
Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal against the decision of Trial Court of dismissing the suit mainly on the ground that the
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that in cases disclosing deliberate defiance and elective non-performance
Delhi High Court: In a matter with regard to the grant of leave to defend, Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed that, the tenant
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of Soumen Sen and Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, JJ., dismissed an appeal concerned with a breach of
Bombay High Court: A.S. Gadkari, J., while addressing a matter of the eviction of a tenant focused on the modes of serving
Supreme Court: Stating that readiness and willingness are necessary for the purpose of passing a decree of specific performance, Division Bench of
Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., while addressing a matter noted the essential ingredients that a landlord is required to show for