Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that eviction proceedings under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller/Sub-Divisional Officer and that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not apply even where the property is used for trade or commerce.
No surrender of tenancy without agreement or decree; Continuous acceptance of rent entitles tenant to repossession: Bombay HC
The Court held that tenancy cannot be said to have been surrendered in absence of a decree of eviction or a valid agreement evidencing surrender, and that temporary handing over of premises for a limited purpose does not extinguish tenancy rights, particularly when rent continued to be paid and accepted.
Delhi High Court held that acceptance of pagri does not make a tenancy perpetual or confer ownership rights on a tenant. Upholding an eviction decree, the Court held that filing of the suit itself amounted to notice of termination and found the Delhi Rent Control Act inapplicable to the premises.
A perpetual lease executed in 1945 eventually led to a dispute spanning over 3 decades, revolving primarily over the legal character and appropriate law governing this lease.
The case exemplified a disquieting and steadily growing tendency amongst litigants to invoke the criminal jurisdiction, not as a bona fide recourse for redressal of legitimate grievances, but as a convenient instrument to settle personal scores and wreak private vengeance.
Landlord’s bona fide requirement for himself or for his dependent family members, founded on age, medical condition and need for financial independence of his children, constitutes a genuine and valid ground for eviction.
“Once security deposit does not fall within the purview of Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 defining “debt”, the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction, as per Section 17 of the same Act.”
“With respect to the bona fide requirement of the landlord, the landlord was only to make out a legitimate case setting out the plausible reason which are not fanciful and unreasonable to establish a bona fide requirement of the subject premises.”
In the case at hand, the demised premises had been taken for rent by the tenant at Rs 5500 per month in August 2003 with a 10% increase in the existing rent after every three years. The tenancy commenced in September 2004, and the tenant was stated to be in arrears of rent from February 2017 to November 2017.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on landlord-tenant relationship.
In the instant matter, the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal reopened the issue of nullity of eviction decree and held that the land in question was vested with the State.