Research Results Based on the Query


ACT
ARG
SCJ
HCJ

Query: A landlord is pursuing eviction proceedings against a tenant who has failed to pay rent for several months. The tenant argues that the rental property is in poor condition and that the landlord has neglected necessary repairs, which justifies withholding rent. The landlord contends that the tenant is responsible for maintaining the property according to the lease agreement and that failure to pay rent is a breach of contract. Both parties are seeking resolution through the legal system, with the tenant seeking to remain in the property while negotiating necessary repairs, and the landlord seeking unpaid rent and possession of the property. My client is landlord.

Revised Query: A landlord is pursuing eviction proceedings against a tenant who has failed to pay rent for several months. The tenant argues that the rental property is in poor condition and that the landlord has neglected necessary repairs, which justifies withholding rent. The landlord contends that the tenant is responsible for maintaining the property according to the lease agreement and that failure to pay rent is a breach of contract. Both parties are seeking resolution through the legal system, with the tenant seeking to remain in the property while negotiating necessary repairs, and the landlord seeking unpaid rent and possession of the property. My client is the landlord.



Likely Arguments


Potential Arguments by Opposing Counsel

1. Tenant's Defense of Withholding Rent Due to Poor Condition of Property
- Opposing counsel may argue that the landlord breached their duty to maintain the property in a habitable condition, as required under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
- They may cite the tenant's right to withhold rent under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in cases of landlord's failure to carry out necessary repairs.
- Opposing counsel may claim that the tenant's actions were justified due to the landlord's alleged neglect of maintenance responsibilities.

2. Tenant's Request for Necessary Repairs Before Payment of Rent
- Opposing counsel may argue that the tenant requested repairs to be carried out before paying rent, which is a reasonable demand under the law.
- They may assert that the landlord's failure to address the maintenance issues in a timely manner led to the tenant withholding rent as a form of self-help remedy.

Effective Counterarguments by Landlord

1. Landlord's Compliance with Maintenance Obligations
- The landlord can counter by providing evidence of regular maintenance and repairs carried out on the property, demonstrating their commitment to fulfilling their duty under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
- They can argue that any alleged neglect was promptly addressed or that the tenant failed to notify the landlord of the maintenance issues in a timely manner.

2. Tenant's Duty to Pay Rent Irrespective of Maintenance Issues
- The landlord can assert that the tenant's obligation to pay rent is independent of the landlord's maintenance responsibilities, as per the terms of the lease agreement.
- They can highlight that the tenant cannot unilaterally withhold rent without legal justification, and the proper course of action would have been to seek legal remedies for the maintenance issues.

Optimal Defense Strategy for the Landlord

1. Serve a Comprehensive Legal Notice
- The landlord should serve a detailed legal notice to the tenant, outlining the grounds for eviction based on non-payment of rent and refuting the tenant's claims of poor maintenance.
- The notice should demand immediate payment of arrears and compliance with the lease agreement terms, including vacating the property if necessary repairs were not promptly addressed.

2. File Eviction Petition and Recovery Suit
- The landlord should promptly file an eviction petition before the Rent Controller or Rent Control Court, citing non-payment of rent as the primary ground for eviction.
- Simultaneously, the landlord should initiate a suit for recovery of unpaid rent before the civil court to recover the arrears owed by the tenant.

3. Gather Strong Evidence
- The landlord should gather evidence of maintenance records, communication with the tenant regarding repairs, and any other documentation supporting their compliance with maintenance obligations.
- Any invoices, receipts, or contractor reports related to property upkeep should be presented as evidence to counter the tenant's claims of neglect.

4. Engage Legal Representation
- It is crucial for the landlord to engage experienced legal representation to navigate the eviction proceedings effectively and present a strong case in court.
- Legal counsel can provide strategic advice, ensure compliance with relevant laws, and advocate for the landlord's interests throughout the legal process.

By following this defense strategy, the landlord can effectively counter the tenant's arguments, assert their rights under the law, and seek a favorable resolution in the eviction proceedings. It is essential for the landlord to act promptly, gather compelling evidence, and engage legal professionals to protect their legal interests and secure possession of the property.


Relevant Supreme Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024

Result 1
Supreme Court of India
Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta vs Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul & Ors
Honourable Judges K. Ramaswamy, D.P. Wadhwa
Date of Judgment: 10 Apr 1997
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

A reading thereof would indicate that the landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of demised premises as lo g as the tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay the amount of standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and observes and performs the other conditions of tenancy in so far as they are consistent with the Act. Where the rent is payable by every month and if there is no dispute regarding the amount of there standard rent or permitted increases, If such rent or increases are in arrears for a period of six months or more and the tenants neglects to make payment thereof until the expiry of the period of one month after the notice referred to in sub- section (2) postulates that no suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiry of one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, it could be seen two conditions must be satisfied for eviction a tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent or permitted increases. Firstly, there must be a default in the payment of rent. The default may continue for six months or more. Secondly, before filing a petition for eviction, a notice in writing under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act shall be given to the tenant giving one month's time. Then, It shows that tenant was not ready and willing to pay rent, if he neglects to pay the rent within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice, on expiry of one month next after notice in writing an d the payment of the standard rent or the permitted increases has been served upon the tenant, the landlord is entitled to file the suit for ejectment. In such event, the court is empowered to order eviction. The question is: whether the appellant was in arrears in the payment of the rent? After the receipt of the notice when he tendered the rent to the advocate whether he has committed default.

Result 2
Supreme Court of India
Harcharan Singh vs Smt. Shivrani And Ors.
Honourable Judges V.D. Tulzapurkar, D.A. Desai, A.P. Sen
Date of Judgment: 20 Feb 1981
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 11
   
   
   

17. The focus should immediately be turned to the provision of law under which the landlord seeks to evict this tenant. According to respondent-landlord she served notice dated November 9, 1966, terminating the tenancy of the appellant as the appellant-tenant was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 20(2)(a) and, therefore, she was entitled to a decree for eviction as she has satisfactorily proved all the requirements or ingredients of Section 20(2)(a). Accepting the finding of fact that the appellant is a tenant liable to pay rent @ Rs. 100/- per annum, the crux of the matter is whether his case is covered by Section 20(2)(a). 18. What does Section 20(2)(a) postulate and what are its components which when satisfied, the landlord would be entitled to evict the tenant? On analysis following ingredients of Section 20(2)(a) would emerge each of which will have to be satisfied before the landlord would be eligible to obtain a decree for eviction, viz : (i) Tenant must be a tenant of premises governed by the Rent Act; (ii) That the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months; (iii) That such a tenant has to pay rent in arrears within a period of one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand. 19. In this case, the tenant is a tenant of premises governed by the Rent Act. 20. The crucial question is whether the second ingredient, as extracted above, is satisfied by the landlord. The attention has to be focused on the expression 'in arrears of rent for not less than four months'. What does this expression signify ? As contended on behalf of the respondent that whatever be the default in payment of rent, the notice can be served after the default has continued for a period of four months, and failure to comply with the requisition in the notice would disentitle the tenant to the protection of Rent Act. Alternatively it was contended that the expression in arrears of rent for not less than four months' on a literal grammatical construction would signify that rent is payable by the month and that the tenant has committed a default in payment of four months' rent and further failed to comply with the requisition made in the notice within the stipulated period of one month and only then the protective umbrella of the Rent Act would be removed and the tenant would be exposed to a decree for eviction.

Result 3
Supreme Court of India
Kameshwar Singh Srivastava vs Iv Addl. Dist. Judge Lucknow & Ors
Honourable Judges K.N. Singh, Sabyasachi Mukharji
Date of Judgment: 14 Nov 1986
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
   
   
   

It is true that on landlord's serving notice of demand on a tenant who may be in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months and on the tenant's failure to tender the rent to the landlord within one month from the service of the notice the tenant is liable to eviction, but in the instant case having regard to the special facts and circumstances available on the record we do not find that the appellant failed to tender the rent to the landlords or that he was in arrear for a period of more than four months. He was all along ready to pay and since the landlords did not give any reply to his notice dt. 6.9.82 he was justified in depositing the arrear in the Munsif's court. Since the deposit was made it must be deemed that the appellant had tendered rent to the landlords as contemplated by sec. 13(6) of the Act. In this view the High Court as well as the courts below committed error in holding that the appellant had failed to pay arrears of rent for a period of more than four months and on that ground he was liable to ejectment from the premises in dispute. We should not be understood to have laid down that the tenant should deposit rent in court instead of paying the same to the landlord. Primarily a tenant is under a legal obligation to pay rent to the landlord as and when due and if he fails to pay the same on demand from the landlord and if he is in arrears for a period of more than four months he would be liable to ejectment. Where there is a bonafide dispute regarding the landlord's right to receive rent on account of there being several claimants or if the landlord refuses to accept the rent without there being any justifi- cation for the same, the tenant would be entitled to take proceeding under sec. 30 of the Act and deposit the rent in court thereupon he would be deemed to have paid the rent to the landlord, consequently he would be relieved of his liability of eviction. It does not however follow that the tenant is entitled to disregard the landlord or ignore his demand for payment of rent to him. The provisions of the Act safeguard tenant's interest but it must be kept in mind that the landlord's right to receive rent and in the event of the tenant's being in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months, his right to ,evict the tenant is preserved.

Result 4
Supreme Court of India
N.D. Thandani (Dead) By Lrs vs Arnavaz Rustom Printer & Anr
Honourable Judges R.C. Lahoti, Ashok Bhan
Date of Judgment: 24 Nov 2003
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

The case at hand projects a picture where in spite of the leaning of the law in favour of the tenant, if anyone deserves sympathy it is the landlord and not the tenant. As already noticed, this is the third round of litigation complaining of default in payment of rent by the tenant. In the first round of litigation the rate of rent was alleged by the landlord to be Rs.160/- per month which was denied by the tenant who pleaded the rate of rent to be Rs.80/- per month only. In the litigation which ended in the apex court, the rate of rent was finally adjudged to have been Rs.160/- per month and not Rs.80/- as was pleaded by the tenant. Not only does the law itself require the tenant to pay or tender the rent month by month, the order of this Court mandated the tenant to clear all the arrears of rent within two months and thereafter to deposit the rent month by month and strictly observe compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court. The tenant did not even thereafter comply with the provisions of Rule 5. Huge amount of arrears accumulated, which were cleared in one go. Even other deposits were not regularly made. The tenant did not keep the landlords informed of the deposits either directly or by complying with the provision of the Rule. The obligation of the tenant to pay or tender the rent cannot be said to have been discharged unless and until the landlords were posted with the information along with particulars enabling them to withdraw the amount. The legal notices served by the landlords were not responded to in the desired manner so as to put an end to their grievance. A claim for eviction founded on the simple ground of default in payment remained pending for years, obviously because of the reluctance and the procrastinating tactics of the tenant. If this is not 'wilful default' then what else can it be? We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held the tenant to be a chronic wilful defaulter. The decree for eviction is fully justified. Before parting, and, in fairness to the learned counsel for the parties, we may place on record a submission made on behalf of the appellant that in spite of the tenant having defaulted in payment of rent for any period prior to the institution of the suit, if the arrears have been cleared (though belatedly) and the landlord has accepted the same, the default, if any, stands wiped out and the cause of action for seeking eviction of the tenant based on the preceding default does not survive.

Result 5
Supreme Court of India
Raja Muthukone (D) By Lrs vs T. Gopalasami And Anr
Honourable Judges R.C. Lahoti, Ruma Pal
Date of Judgment: 21 Mar 2002
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
   
   
   

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6929 of 2000 PETITIONER: RAJA MUTHUKONE (D) BY LRS. RESPONDENT: T. GOPALASAMI AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/2002 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & RUMA PAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2002 (2) SCR 708 The following Order of the Court was delivered: A Suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground available under Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been ordered to be decreed by the High Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby the tenant has filed this appeal by special leave. For our purpose it would suffice to set out only a few relevant facts which, at this stage, are not in controversy. The rent for the months of June, 1983 to November, 1984 was not paid by the tenant to the landlord. On 7/12/1984 the landlord served a notice on the tenant claiming the rent in arrears as contemplated by Explanation to sub-Section (2) of Section 10. The notice was served. The tenant replied to it. It appears that there were multiple legal proceedings initiated before different fora, between the landlord and the tenant which had all stood concluded. In two or three of such proceedings, the tenant had deposited the amount of rent. The dates of deposit are not know but the fact remains that the rent which was claimed as in arrears, was actually deposited. The factum of rent having been deposited in such proceedings was stated by the tenant in his reply to the notice. However, without waiting for the period of two months, the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on 2/1/1985 before the Rent Controller. Subsequent to the filing of these proceedings for eviction, on 18/1/1985 the landlord moved a petition, called the cheque memo, withdrawing the rent deposited by the tenant in different proceedings and the amount was also withdrawn. The short question which arises for consideration is whether in such facts and circumstances the tenant can be said to have committed a wilful default in paying or tendering the rent to the landlord. According to the learned counsel for the landlord, the tenant was bound to pay or tender rent to the landlord, month by month, within fifteen days of the expirty of each tenancy month and if the tenant had . deposited the rent in certain proceedings, which had already stood concluded, then he did so at" his own peril and he cannot take advantage of such deposits for purging the default. The submission of the learned counsel for the tenant is that if the landlord choses to serve a notice claiming the rent in terms of the Explanation abovesaid, then he must wait for a period of two months for payment or tender of rent by the tenant and it is only in the event of latter's failure to pay the rent in the notice period that he may be considered to be a defaulter.

Result 6
Supreme Court of India
Prithvichand Ramchand Sablok vs S.Y.Shinde
Honourable Judges A.M. Ahmadi, S. Mohan
Date of Judgment: 13 May 1993
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
   
   
   

It imposes certain restrictions on the right of the landlord from recovering possession so long as the tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted increases and observes and performs the other conditions of' the tenancy which are consistent with the provisions of the Act. If the tenant has failed to pay the rent and permitted increases due from him he can be evicted for that neglect in the manner set out in section 12 of the Act. The other provision which confers a right of eviction is section 13 of the Act with which we are not concerned in this case. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the landlord had sought eviction under section 12of the Act as the tenant had committed a breach of sub- section ( 1) thereof, in that, he had failed to pay the rent to the landlord. To comply with the requirement of sub- section (2) of that provision the landlord had served the tenant with a notice prior to the institution of the suit seeking eviction under section 12(3) of the Act. This sub- section is in two parts and may be extracted for ready reference "12 (3) (a) Where the rent is payable by the month and there is no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted in- creases, if such rent or increases are in arrears for a period of six months or more and the tenant neglects to make payment thereof until the expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-section (2), the court may pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession. 12(3) (b) In any other case no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit if on the day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the court." Clause (a) sets out the circumstances in which the tenant forfeits the protection of the statute and entitles and landlord to evict him. If the case does not fall within the scope of clause (a) the question to be considered is whether eviction should be ordered under clause (b).

Result 7
Supreme Court of India
M. Padmanabha Setty vs K. P. Papiah Setty
Honourable Judges P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri
Date of Judgment: 11 Mar 1966
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

Sub-section (2) provides the circumstances in which a landlord would be entitled to seek eviction of a tenant in possession. For instance, a landlord is entitled to evict a tenant if the tenant has not tendered or paid the rent due by him in respect of the premises within the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with the landlord on in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable; if he has transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire premises or any portion thereof; or used the premises for the purpose other than that for which they were leased; or if the tenant has committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the house; or if the tenant has without the landlord's consent in writing erected on the house or any portion thereof any permanent ' structure; or if the tenant or any person residing with the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct as amounts to nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers or has been using the house or allowing the house to be used for immoral or illegal purposes; or that the house is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for carrying out repairs or reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the house being vacated; or that the house has not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let for a continuous period of three months immediately preceding the date of application; or that the tenant, after the commencement of the Act, has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable house. We have set out these conditions in detail because it would be relevant to consider whether in view of these conditions a tenant can be said to have a right to possession of the premises of which he is a tenant.

Result 8
Supreme Court of India
Ladu Ram vs Ganesh Lal
Honourable Judges V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
Date of Judgment: 12 Aug 1999
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

The tenant shall also continue to deposit in court or pay to the landlord, month by month, the monthly rent subsequent to the period up to which determination has been made, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month or within such further time not exceeding fifteen days, as may be extended by the court at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under sub-section (3). (5) If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (4), on the date or within the time specified therein, the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. (6) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by sub-section (4), no decree for eviction on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be passed by the court against him; Provided that a tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under this sub-section, if having obtained such benefit or benefit under section 13-A in respect of any such accommodation, if he again makes a default in the payment of rent of that accommodation for six months. The plaint of the suit filed by the appellant discloses that the suit was for ejectment of the respondent tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. According to the scheme of the Act, in such a suit the court is required to provisionally determine the amount of arrears of rent to be deposited in the court or pay to the landlord by the tenant along with interest. After the provisional determination of the arrears of rent by the trial court, the tenant is required to deposit the entire arrears of rent as determined by the trial court within a particular period of time, and further the tenant is required to deposit in the court or pay to the landlord monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which the determination has been made. In case the tenant fails to comply with the order of the court, his defence against the eviction is liable to be struck off and the court is to proceed with the hearing of the suit. If the tenant complies with the order, the tenant is relieved of the decree for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent.

Result 9
Supreme Court of India
V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs Yesodai Ammal
Honourable Judges N.L. Untwalia, Y.V. Chandrachud, Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, P.N. Shingal, P.S. Kailasam, E.S. Venkataramiah, O. Chinnappa Reddy
Date of Judgment: 23 Aug 1979
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
   
   
   

Even after the termination of the contractual tenancy under the definition of the landlord in clause (6) and of the tenant under clause (8) of section 2 the landlord remains a landlord and the tenant remains a tenant as clause (8) expressly says that tenant means "a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour." Section 3 indicated that no landlord can treat the building to have become vacant by merely terminating the contractual tenancy as the tenant still lawfully continues in possession of the premises. The tenancy actually terminates on the passing of the order or decree for eviction and the building falls vacant by his actual eviction. The giving of the notice, therefore, is a mere surplusage and unlike the law under the Transfer of Property Act it does not entitle the landlord to evict the tenant. Adverting to the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rents Control Act, 1947 it would be found from the definition section 5 that any person remaining in the building after the determination of the lease is a tenant within the meaning of clause (11). Section 12 of the Bombay Act says that the landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) are fulfilled nor any suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against a tenant on the happening of the events mentioned in sub-section (2) until the expiration of one month next after the notice is served on the tenant in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, as required by the said sub-section. Section 13 provides that a landlord may recover possession on certain grounds. Is it not plain then that on the happening of the events or on the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in sections 12 and 13 etc. the landlord becomes entitled to recover possession from the tenant, otherwise not. It will bear repetition to say that under the Transfer of Property Act in order to entitle the landlord to recover possession determination of the lease is necessary as during its continuance he could not recover possession, while under the State Rent Act the landlord becomes entitled to recover possession only on the fulfillment of the rigour of law provided therein. Otherwise not. He cannot recover possession merely by determination of tenancy.

Result 10
Supreme Court of India
Jamnalal & Ors vs Radheshyam
Honourable Judges N.S.Hegde, S.S.M.Quadri
Date of Judgment: 18 Apr 2000
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

A cursory reading of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act makes it clear that non-payment of arrears of rent legally recoverable from a tenant within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner, is one of the grounds for filing a suit in a Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from the rented accommodation. But the legislative mandate contained in sub-section (3) of Section 12 is that no order of eviction of a tenant shall be made if he makes payment or deposit as required by Section 13 of the Act. The proviso appended to Section 12(3) restricts entitlement to the benefit available under that sub- section. It cannot be availed by a tenant who having obtained such benefit once in respect of any accommodation again makes a default in payment of rent of that accommodation for three consecutive months. The scheme of Section 13 of the Act suggests that the provisions thereof are intended for the benefit of both the tenant as well as the landlord. While Section 13 affords protection to a defaulting tenant, willing to abide by the obligation to pay the rent regularly, against eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, it also ensures payment of rent to the landlord, which he is entitled to receive for both the pre- litigation period as well as during the pendency of the litigation. A perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 discloses that it imposes twin obligations on the tenant against whom a suit or proceeding is instituted on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 12. The first is that within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, the tenant shall deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an amount, representing (a) arrears of rent for the period for which the tenant may have made default and (b) rent for the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made, duly calculating the same at the rate of rent at which it was paid. And the second is payment/deposit of rent for the period thereafter, that is, future rent which he shall continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month, at that rate.

Result 11
Supreme Court of India
Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwanddin vs Dave Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad
Honourable Judges Raghubar Dayal, J.L. Kapur, K.C. Das Gupta
Date of Judgment: 04 May 1962
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 16
   
   
   

The second contention that, the appellant's having paid the arrears of rent within 2 months of the institution of the suit, there would be no forfeiture of the tenancy has no force in view of the provisions of s. 12 of the Act. Sub- section (2) permits the landlord to institute a, suit for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent after the expiration of one month from the service of the notice demanding the arrears of rent, and cl. (a) of sub-s.(3) empowers the Court to Pass a decree in case the rent had been payable by the month, there was no dispute about the amount of standard rent, the arrears of rent, had been for a period of six months and the tenant had neglected to make the payment within a month of the service of the notice of demand. The tenant's paying the arrears of rent after the institution of the suit therefore does not affect his liability to eviction and the Court's power to pass a decree for eviction. It is true that the expression used in el. (a) of sub-s.(3) is 'the Court may pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession', but this does not mean as contended for the appellant, that the Court has discretion to pass or not to pass a decree for eviction in case the other conditions mentioned in that clause are satisfied. The landlord became entitled to recover possession when the tenant failed to pay rent and this right in him is not taken away by any other provision in the Act. The Court is therefore bound in law to pass the decree when the requirements of sub-s-(2) of s.12 are satisfied. This is also clear from a comparison of the language used in cl. (a) with the language used in cl. (b) of sub-s. (3) which deals with a suit for eviction which does not come within cl.(a) and provides that no decree for eviction shall be passed in such a suit if on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court. It is clear that where the legislature intended to give some benefit to the tenant on account of the payment of the arrears during the pendency of the suit, it made a specific provision.

Result 12
Supreme Court of India
Harcharan Singh vs Shiv Rani And Ors
Honourable Judges V.D. Tulzapurkar, D.A. Desai, A.P. Sen
Date of Judgment: 20 Feb 1981
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 17
   
   
   

According to respondent-landlord she served notice dated November 9, 1966, terminating the tenancy of the appellant as the appellant-tenant was a defaulter within the meaning of s. 20(2) (a) and, therefore, she all was entitled to a decree for eviction as she has satisfactorily proved all the requirements or ingredients of s. 20(2) (a). Accepting the finding of fact that the appellant is a tenant liable to pay rent @ Rs. 100/- per annum, the crux of the matter is whether his case is covered by s. 20(2) (a). What does s. 20(2) (a) postulate and what are its components which when satisfied, the landlord would be entitled to evict the tenant ? On analysis following ingredients of s. 20(2) (a) would emerge each of which will have to be satisfied before the landlord 1 would be eligible to obtain a decree for eviction, viz: (i) Tenant must be a tenant of premises governed by the Rent Act; (ii) That the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months; (iii) That such a tenant has to pay rent in arrears within a period of one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand. In this case, the tenant is a tenant of premises governed by tho Rent Act. The crucial question is whether the second ingredient, as extracted above, is satisfied by the landlord. The attention has to be focused on the expression 'in arrears of rent for not less than four months'. What does this expression signify ? As contended on behalf of the respondent that whatever be the default in payment of rent, the notice can be served after the default has continued for a period of four months, and failure to comply with the requisition in the notice would disentitle the tenant to the protection of Rent Act. Alternatively it was contended that the expression in arrears of rent for not less than four months' on a literal grammatical construction would signify that rent is payable by the month and that the tenant has committed a default in payment of four months' rent and further failed to comply with the requisition made in the notice within the stipulated period of one month and only then the protective umbrella of the Rent Act would be removed and the tenant would be exposed to a decree for eviction.

Result 13
Supreme Court of India
Om Prakash And Anr vs Mishri Lal (Dead) Rep. By His Lr. Savitri ...
Honourable Judges Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy
Date of Judgment: 21 Mar 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

23. Sub-section 4 of Section 20 provides that if at the first hearing of the suit, the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord, the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum and the landlord’s cost of the suit in respect thereof after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub- section 1 of Section 30, the court may in lieu of passing a decree for eviction, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction, on that ground. The proviso thereto being not of any consequence in the present case is not being referred to. 24. Section 21 authorises the Prescribed Authority to order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof, if it is satisfied, on an application by the landlord, that, amongst others the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and raising of new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of its family or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling or if the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust. 25. Sub-section 4 clarifies that such an order may be made notwithstanding that the tenancy has not been determined with the exception that no such order would be made in the case of tenancy created for a fixed term by registered lease, before the expiry of such term. 26. Section 30 of the Act permits deposit of rent in court in certain circumstances. It predicates that if any person claiming to be a tenant of a building tenders any amount as rent in respect of the building to its alleged landlord and the alleged landlord refuses to accept the same, then the tenant may deposit such amount in the prescribed manner and continue to deposit any rent which he alleges to be due for any subsequent period in respect of such building until the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant, his willingness to accept it. Sub-section 2 elaborates that where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent in respect of any building, the tenant may likewise deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent court or by settlement between the parties, continue to deposit the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building.

Result 14
Supreme Court of India
Pawan Kumar Gupta vs B.R. Gupta
Honourable Judges S. Abdul Nazeer, J. Chelameswar
Date of Judgment: 09 May 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

13 Sub-section (6) of Section 15 states that if a tenant makes payment or deposit as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (3), no order shall be made for recovery of possession on the ground of default in the payment of rent by the tenant, but the Controller may allow such costs as he deem fit to the landlord. Sub-section (7) of Section 15 states that if a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by this section, the Controller may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the application. The other important provision is sub-section (2) of Section 14 which states that no order for recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Section 15. Thus, payment of rent as directed by the Controller under sub-section (1) of Section 15 is a must in order to avoid eviction under Section 14(1)(a). 14 The first contention of the learned senior counsel for the tenant is that the order dated 07.02.2005 passed under Section 15(1) of the Act has been modified by the Rent Controller by his order dated 05.07.2011. Therefore, the Rent Controller was not justified in passing an order of eviction for non-payment of rent in terms of the order dated 7th February, 2005. There is no merit in this contention. As noticed above, the appellant claimed rent @ Rupees five hundred per month from 1st April, 2001 along with interest thereon by issuing a demand notice under Section 14(1)(a). Since tenant failed to comply with the demand made in the notice, the landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The tenant filed a counter stating that he had paid the rent from time to time and that the landlord did not issue any receipt against the same. It was also contended that pursuant to the demand notice dated 19th January, 2004, he had sent the reply along with a demand draft for a sum of Rupees 18,000/- towards the rent @ Rupees five hundred per month from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004. The Rent Controller passed order dated 07.02.2005 under Section 15(1) of the Act, directing the tenant to pay or deposit a sum of Rupees five hundred per month with effect from 1.10.2004 within one month from the date of the order and further continue to pay or deposit future rent at the aforesaid rate month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month during trial. This order was passed because there was dispute in relation to payment of rent from 1.4.2001 till 30.9.2004. The question relating payment of rent for this period was kept open.

Result 15
Supreme Court of India
Dunlop India Ltd vs A.A.Rahna & Anr
Honourable Judges Asok Kumar Ganguly, G.S. Singhvi
Date of Judgment: 04 May 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 13
   
   
   

It is for the landlord to make out a ground for eviction. The burden of proof lies on him. However, the onus keeps shifting. Once the landlord has been able to show that the tenancy premises were not being used for the purpose for which they were let out and the tenant has discontinued such activities in the tenancy premises as would have required the tenant's actually being in the premises, the ground for eviction is made out. The availability of a reasonable cause for ceasing to occupy the premises would obviously be within the knowledge and, at times, within the exclusive knowledge of the tenant. Once the premises have been shown by evidence to be not in occupation of the tenant, the pleading of the landlord that such non-user is without reasonable cause has the effect of putting the tenant on notice to plead and prove the availability of reasonable cause for ceasing to occupy the tenancy premises." (emphasis supplied) 21. In Brown v. Brash (1948) 1 All. E.R. 922, the Court of appeal was called upon to examine correctness of an order passed by the County Court Judge, who upheld the tenant's claim to possession of the premises and awarded damages against the appellant for trespass. The facts of that case were that the premises were let out to the tenant in 1941 on a quarterly rent of 26 pounds. In 1945, the tenant was convicted and sentenced to serve 2 years' imprisonment for stealing 6 tones of tea. While going to jail, the tenant left physical occupation of the premises to his mistress and two illegitimate children. In March 1946, the tenant's mistress left the premises and dropped the two children with his mother. In the meanwhile, the landlord sold the premises. The purchaser filed an action in July 1946 for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he had abandoned possession. The County Court Judge held that the tenant had not abandoned possession and that even though he failed in some of his obligations under the tenancy, it was not reasonable to make an order for possession against him. In December 1946, the purchaser of the original landlord transferred the premises to the appellant. After release from prison, the tenant brought an action for possession and damages for trespass. His claim was allowed by the County Court Judge, who directed the appellant to return the premises to the respondent-tenant and also pay damages. The Court of appeal reversed the order of the County Court Judge and held: "We are of opinion that a "non-occupying" tenant prima facie forfeits his status as a statutory tenant. But what is meant by "non-occupying"? The term clearly cannot cover every tenant who for however short a time, or however necessary a purpose, or with whatever intention as regards returning, absents himself from the demised premises. To retain possession or occupation for the purpose of retaining protection the tenant cannot be compelled to spend 24 hours in all weathers under his own roof for 365 days in the year.

Result 16
Supreme Court of India
V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs Yesodai Ammal
Honourable Judges N.L. Untwalia, Y.V. Chandrachud, Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, P.N. Shingal, P.S. Kailasam, E.S. Venkataramiah, O. Chinnappa Reddy
Date of Judgment: 23 Aug 1979
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
   
   
   

The landlord is bound to let out his premises on rent to a person even against his wishes when the concerned authority allots a particular premises to a person. When once the premises are so allotted, the landlord is bound to give the premises to that person and at the rent fixed by the authority concerned. In the matter of determination of the tenancy the State Rent Acts do not permit a landlord to snap his relationship with the tenant merely by serving on him a notice to quit as is the position under the Transfer of Property Act. The landlord can recover possession of the property only on one or more of the grounds enacted in the relevant section of the Rent Acts. Even after the termination of the contractual tenancy the landlord, under the definitions of landlord and tenant contained in the Rent Acts, remains a landlord and a tenant remains a tenant because of the express provision made in the enactments that a tenant means "a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy his favour." It is also provided that no landlord can treat a building to have been vacant by merely terminating the contractual tenancy as the tenant still lawfully continues in possession of the premises. Yet another important feature of the Rent Acts is that either by way of a non-obstante clause or by necessary implication these enactments have done away with the law contained in s. 108 of the T. P. Act dealing with rights and liabilities of the lessor and the lessee. The difference between the position obtaining under the Transfer of Property Act and the Rent Acts in the matter of determination of a lease is that under the former Act to recover possession of the property determination of the lease is necessary because during the continuance of the lease the landlord cannot recover possession of the premises while under the Rent Acts the landlord becomes entitled to recover possession only on the fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the relevant sections. He cannot recover possession merely by determining the tenancy. Nor can he be stopped from doing so on the ground that he has not terminated the contractual tenancy. In the instant case the appellant filed an application against the tenant under s. 10(3)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1970 calling upon him to quit on the ground of personal necessity.

Result 17
Supreme Court of India
Banatwala & Company vs L.I.C.Of India & Anr
Honourable Judges H.L. Gokhale, R.V. Raveendran
Date of Judgment: 19 Aug 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

Since the premises owned by the landlord are leased out to the tenant by virtue of the agreement between the parties, the agreement is normally called a `lease deed'. To put it in the words of Prof. P.F. Smith "The relationship of landlord and tenant arises where one person, who possesses either a freehold or leasehold property interest expressly or impliedly grants to another, by means of a contract, an estate in that property which is less than the freehold interest or for a shorter duration than the leasehold interest of the grantor, as the case may be." (The Law of Landlord and Tenant, Fourth Edition, Page 9). Although, the lease deed is also a contract between the parties, the provisions of T.P. Act relating to contracts, shall be taken as part of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (vide Section 4 of T.P. Act). As a `lease deed' is a contract relating to `leases' governed by T.P. Act, the relationship between the landlord and the tenant would be governed by the terms of the lease deed and subject to its terms, by Section 108 relating to the rights and liabilities of leasor and leasee, and other statutory provisions controlling leases under the T.P. Act. 11. Generally, the terms of the agreement between the landlord and the tenant would require the landlord to maintain the premises in tenantable condition, and he will get the premises repaired when necessary. The tenant will be required to vacate the premises at the end of the period of lease. During the lease period, it will be the responsibility of the tenant to pay the rent regularly and `keep the premises in good condition subject only to changes caused by reasonable wear and tear or irresistible force' and `when such defect has been caused by any act or default on the part of the lessee, his servants or agents, he is bound to make it good within three months after such notice has been given or left' (See Section 108 (m) of T.P. Act. If the tenant commits breaches of the lease agreement by not paying the rent regularly or remaining in arrears thereof, or causing damage to the premises, the landlord may terminate the lease earlier, even before the expiry of the agreed term as per the provisions concerning the termination provided in the agreement and the Transfer of Property Act. If the tenant does not vacate the premises after the termination of lease, the landlord will have to file a suit for evicting him in the Civil Court. 12. On the other hand `if the lessor neglects to make, within a reasonable time after notice, any repairs which he is bound to make to the property, the lessee may make the same himself, and deduct the expense of such repairs with interest from the rent, or otherwise recover it from the lessor' (see Section 108 (f) of T.P. Act). Section 108 (l) of the T.P. Act lays down that `the lessee is bound to pay or tender, at the proper time and place, the premium or rent to the lessor or his agent in this behalf'.

Result 18
Supreme Court of India
Kannan & Anr vs Tamil Talir Kalvi Kazhagam
Honourable Judges K. Venkataswami, A.P. Misra
Date of Judgment: 15 May 1998
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
   
   
   

He has continued to pay the rent even after dispute arose after waiting for some time and after making an application under Section 9(3) before the Rent Controller. When two or more interpretations are possible, the one which subserves to the object should be accepted. We find sub-section (3) of Section 9 contemplates deposit of rent in case of bona fide doubt or dispute. This is to salvage tenant from eviction. However, this would depend on the facts of each case. Thus, where there are two possible interpretations, the one which prevents a tenant from unreasonable eviction be accepted. Learned counsel for the respondent strongly relied upon the case Kameshwar Singh Srivastava Vs. IV Add1. Distt. Judge, Lucknow and Others (1986) (4) SCC 661) :- "We should not be understood to have laid down that the tenant should deposit rent in court instead of paying the same to the landlord. Primarily a tenant is under a legal obligation to pay rent to the landlord as and when due and if he fails to pay the same on demand from the landlord and if he is in arrears for a period of more than four months he would be liable to ejectment. Where there is a bona fide dispute regarding the landlord's right to receive rent on account of there being several claimants or if the landlord refuses to accept the rent without being several claimants or if the landlord refuses to accept the rent without there being any justification for the same, the tenant would be entitled to take proceedings under Section 30 of the Act and deposit the rent in paid the rent to the landlord, consequently he would be relieved of his liability of eviction. It does not however follow that the tenant is entitled to disregard the landlord or ignore his demand for payment of rent to him. The provisions of the Act safeguard tenant's interest but it must be kept in mind that the landlord's right to receive rent and in t he event of the tenant's being in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months, his right to evict the tenant is preserved. If the tenant makes the deposit in court without there being any justification for the same or if he refuses to pay the rent even on the service of notice of demand by the landlord, he would be liable to eviction.

Result 19
Supreme Court of India
Ladu Ram vs Ganesh Lal
Honourable Judges V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
Date of Judgment: 12 Aug 1999
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

Now, the question that arises for consideration is, whether a court in absence of any relief for recovery of arrears of rent in a suit for eviction based on default in payment of rent is precluded to determine the provisional amount of rent which a tenant is required to deposit?. If a suit for eviction is based on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, the landlord must allege and prove three requirements, namely, (i) the tenant is in arrears of rent, (ii) such arrears of rent were due for more than six months and (iii) the tenant has failed to pay such arrears of rent to the landlord. Excepting these requirements there is no other requirement of law which a landlord is to plead and prove for obtaining decree of eviction. We, therefore, find that a landlord is not required in a suit for eviction based on default to seek an additional relief for recovery of arrears of rent. Even without such a relief a decree for eviction against a tenant can be passed by the court. This aspect can be examined from another angle. Under Order 2 sub-rule (2) C.P.C., where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he is debarred afterwards to sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. The only effect of absence of relief for recovery of arrears of rent in a suit is that the plaintiff cannot subsequently file a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for which he omits to sue in a suit for eviction based on default in payment of rent. Applying the said principles it does not stand to reason why a suit simplicitor for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act is not maintainable in absence of relief for recovery of arrears of rent. A perusal of sub-sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section 13 shows that the determination and payment of arrears of rent by a tenant have been provided for the benefit of tenant. The object behind the aforesaid provisions is that no decree of ejectment can be passed in favour of landlord where the eviction is sought on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent if the tenant pays or deposits the arrears of rent within the time provided.

Result 20
Supreme Court of India
J.Jermons vs Aliammal & Ors
Honourable Judges Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, V.N.Khare
Date of Judgment: 16 Aug 1999
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

Provided that in any case falling under clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 11, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord up to the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub- section, default to pay or tender rent shall be construed as wilful, if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two months' notice by the landlord claiming the rent." A combined reading of the provisions, extracted above, shows that a tenant will be in default of payment of the rent due by him in respect of the building if (a) he has not paid or tendered the rent due within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord; or (b) in the absence of such agreement he has not paid or tendered the rent due by him by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, e.g., the rent for the month of January is not paid by February 28. But a default simplicitor in payment of rent is not a ground to order eviction of the tenant because the tenant is entitled to satisfy the Court/Controller that his default in paying or tendering the rent was not wilful. If the Court/Controller is satisfied that non-payment/tendering of rent was not wilful, it has to give the tenant a reasonable time which should not exceed fifteen days, for payment/tendering of the rent due up to the date of such payment to the landlord and on the tenant so paying/tendering it has to reject the application seeking eviction of the tenant. But if the Court/Controller is not so satisfied, the default will be termed as 'wilful default' and the tenant will be liable to be evicted on that ground.

Result 21
Supreme Court of India
Kameshwar Singh Srivastava vs Iv Addl. Dist. Judge Lucknow & Ors
Honourable Judges K.N. Singh, Sabyasachi Mukharji
Date of Judgment: 14 Nov 1986
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

The appellant, in the instant case, had relieved himself from the liability of eviction and he was not in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months. [23IF-G] 5. The scheme, structure and the policy discernible from the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 unmistakably aim at regulating the conditions of tenancy, rent and preventing eviction of tenants. The legislature has taken care to make special provisions protecting the interest of tenants from eviction while placing obligation on him to pay rent. The right of a tenant not to be evicted and the prohibition against a landlord from seeking eviction except upon speci- fied grounds are well protected by the provisions of the Act, and the tenant is afforded an opportunity to pay ar- rears of rent even after filing of the suit and, in some cases even after a decree of eviction is passed. [229G-230A] 6. The special provisions as contained in ss. 30(4), 30, 39 and 40 indicate the legislative policy to safeguard the interest of a tenant, who deposits rent in accordance with those provisions. The Court must strive to so interpret the statute as to protect and advance the object and purpose of the enactment. Any narrow or technical interpretation of the provisions would defeat the legislative policy. The Courts must, therefore, keep the legislative policy in mind in applying the provisions of the Act to the facts of the case. [230B] 7. Primarily a tenant is under a legal obligation to pay rent to the landlord as and when due and if he fails to pay the same on demand from the landlord and if he is in arrears for a period of more than four months he would be liable to ejectment. Where there is a bonafide dispute regarding the landlord's right to receive rent on account of their being several claimants or if the landlord refuses to accept the rent without there being any justification for the same, the tenant would be justified to take proceeding under s. 30 of the Act and deposit the rent in Court. Thereupon he would be deemed to have paid the rent to landlord, consequently, he would be relieved of liability of eviction. It does not, however, follow that the tenant is entitled to disregard the landlord or ignore his demand for payment of rent to him and deposit the same in Court.

Result 22
Supreme Court of India
J.Jermons vs Aliammal & Ors
Honourable Judges V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
Date of Judgment: 16 Aug 1999
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

Provided that in any case falling under clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 11, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord up to the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub- section, default to pay or tender rent shall be construed as wilful, if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two months' notice by the landlord claiming the rent." A combined reading of the provisions, extracted above, shows that a tenant will be in default of payment of the rent due by him in respect of the building if (a) he has not paid or tendered the rent due within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord; or (b) in the absence of such agreement he has not paid or tendered the rent due by him by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, e.g., the rent for the month of January is not paid by February 28. But a default simplicitor in payment of rent is not a ground to order eviction of the tenant because the tenant is entitled to satisfy the Court/Controller that his default in paying or tendering the rent was not wilful. If the Court/Controller is satisfied that non-payment/tendering of rent was not wilful, it has to give the tenant a reasonable time which should not exceed fifteen days, for payment/tendering of the rent due up to the date of such payment to the landlord and on the tenant so paying/tendering it has to reject the application seeking eviction of the tenant. But if the Court/Controller is not so satisfied, the default will be termed as 'wilful default' and the tenant will be liable to be evicted on that ground.

Result 23
Supreme Court of India
Shyamcharan Sharma vs Dharamdas
Honourable Judges O. Chinnappa Reddy, V.R. Krishnaiyer, R.S. Pathak
Date of Judgment: 04 Dec 1979
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
   
   
   

The ground with which we are concerned is that mentioned in s. 12(1) (a) and-it is: "that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner". Thus, where a tenant is in arrears of rent, a landlord is obliged, before instituting a suit for eviction on that ground, to serve a notice of demand calling upon the tenant to pay or tender the whole of the arrears of rent within two months of the date of service of the notice. S. 12(3) provides that an order for the eviction of a tenant shall not be made on the ground specified in s. 12(1) (a), if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by s. 13. S. 13,sub-ss. (1), (5) and (6) which are relevant for the present purpose are as follows: "13. (1) on a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in s. 12, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. xx xx xx xx xx (5) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), no decree or order shall be made by the Court for the recovery of possession of the accommodation on the ground of default in the payment of rent by the tenant, but the Court may allow such cost as it may deem fit to the landlord. (6) If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount as required by this section, the Court may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit."

Result 24
Supreme Court of India
Jaywant S. Kulkarni & Ors vs Minochar Dosabhai Shroff & Ors
Honourable Judges Sabyasachi Mukharji, R.S. Pathak, L.M. Sharma
Date of Judgment: 09 Aug 1988
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
   
   
   

Sub-section 3(a) of section 12 categorically provided that where the rent was payable by the month and there was no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, if such rent or increases were in arrears for a period of six months or more and the tenant neglected to make payment thereof until the expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub- section (2), the Court shall pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession. In the instant case, as has been found by the Court. the rent is payable month by month. There is no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases. Such rent or increase are in arrears for a period of six months or more. The tenant had neglected to make payment until the expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub- section (2). The Court was bound to pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery or possession In terms of the decision of this Court in Harbanslal Jagmohandas supra), the eviction order had to follow by operation of law. Shri Bhasme, however, submitted before us that here there was no question of negligence in proper light because he drew our attention to several letters whereby the tenant to pay then rent of the landlord. 'The tenant's case was that the landlord Was not granting receipts. The landlord was not demanding ``rent but was demanding.' ``compensation" for use and occupation. He drew our attention to several decision and urged that the tenant was willing to pay the rent provided receipts were granted to him. Shri Bhasme urged that the landlord did not comply with the request to give written receipts. He was punishable with fine which might extend to one hundred rupee under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act. Shri Bhasme submitted that in this case. the landlord was mala fide and by his mala fide act he was preventing the tenant from performing his obligation. He further urged that this was not a case of bona fide need. The landlord was. affluent and the tenant was a poor. There was a great shortage of accommodation. In view of the decision of this Court in Harbanslal jagmohandas and Anr. V. Prabhudas Shivlal (supra) and the provisions. of Section l2(3 (a) and (b) and in the Court below were right. circumstances of the case, we must hold that the Courts below were right.

Result 25
Supreme Court of India
Ram Murti vs Bhola Nath And Anr.
Honourable Judges A.P. Sen, M.P. Thakkar
Date of Judgment: 01 May 1984
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

7. From a conspectus of these provisions, it would be seen that the various sub-sections of Sections 14 and 15 form an integrated process seeking to strike a balance between the conflicting rights of the landlord to secure eviction of the tenant on any one or more of the grounds specified in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 and that of the tenant for protection against such eviction except under certain circumstances. The predominant object and purpose of the legislation, as a matter of social control, is to prevent eviction of tenants and to provide for control of rents etc. One must therefore give a meaningful interpretation to the various sub-sections of Sections 14 and 15 in furtherance of the purpose and object of the legislation. 8. The right of the landlord to claim eviction of the tenant on the ground that he has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him under Section 14(1)(a) is made subject to the provisions of Section 14(2). The opening words of Section 14(2)'No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in Clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) clearly subordinate the landlord's claim for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent to the statutory protection given to the tenant under Section 14(2) against eviction on that ground on condition that he makes payment or deposit as required under Section 15. When a tenant can get the benefit of the protection under Section 14(2) is provided for in Section 15(1). Section 15(1) of the Act is in two parts. The first part requires the tenant to pay or deposit within one month of the order of the Rent Controller passed under Section 15(1) directing him to pay the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which such payment or deposit is to be made. The second part is meant to secure payment of future rent by a defaulting tenant and casts a duty on such tenant to continue to pay or deposit, month by month, by the 15th day of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.

Result 26
Supreme Court of India
Mohd. Salimuddin vs Misri Lal And Another
Honourable Judges M.P. Thakkar, E.S. Venkataramiah
Date of Judgment: 12 Mar 1986
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

The lower appellate Court dismissed the respondent landlord's suit for eviction against the appellant-tenant holding that the tenant was not in arrears of rent. The following facts are not in dispute:- 1) The tenant had advanced a sum of Rs. 2000 under an agreement which interalia contained a stipulation that the loan amount was to be adjusted against the rent which accrued. 2) The amount so advanced by the tenant was sufficient to cover the lanlord's claim of arrears. 3) If the loan amount was accordingly adjusted towards the rent which accrued, the tenant was not in arrears of rent. The High Court has taken the view that since the loan advanced by the tenant was in violation of the prohibition contained in the Rent Act, [Section 3 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.] the tenant was not entitled to claim adjustment of the loan amount against the rent which accrued subsequently. The tenant was therefore in arrears of rent and liable to be evicted according to the High Court. The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable inasmuch as the High Court has lost sight of the fact that the parties to the contract were unequal. The tenant was acting under compulsion of circumstances and was obliged to succumb to the will of the landlord, who was in a dominating position.If the tenant had not agreed to advance the loan he would not have been able to secure the tenancy. It was the landlord who was in the position of an oppressor who wanted to exploit the situation obtaining in the context of the acute housing shortage which prevailed. The tenant had either to yield to the unlawful demand of the landlord or go without a roof, for, otherwise, the landlord would not have granted the lease. The relevant provision prohibiting the payment of rent in advance embodied in the Rent Act was enacted precisely to protect the tenant from such exploitation. Obviously, he had to succumb to such exploitation, the protective law notwithstanding, as he would have been obliged to remain roofless. The law extended the protection but did not guarantee the roof. To deny accecess to justice to a tenant who is obliged to yield to the unlawful demands of the landlord in this scenerio by invoking the doctrine of pari delicto is to add insult to injury, and to negate the very purpose of the provision designed for his protection.

Result 27
Supreme Court of India
Heera Traders vs Kamla Jain
Honourable Judges K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy
Date of Judgment: 22 Feb 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 13
   
   
   

This is a ground available under Section 12(1)(a). It constitutes a cause of action for seeking eviction. However, Section 12(3) provided and continues to provide that no Order for the Eviction of a tenant shall be made on the ground under Section 12(1)(a), if the tenant makes payment or deposit, as contemplated in Section 13. The proviso to Section 13, however, tabooed and continues to prohibit the invocation of the protection under Section 12(3) read with Section 13, more than once, in respect of any accommodation. The tenant, in other words, stands shielded from eviction despite the availability of the ground under Section 12(1)(a), leading to an Eviction proceeding being filed. But, in respect of the same accommodation, in respect of which, the default took place, the tenant does not get insulated from eviction, if he defaults in payment of rent for the same accommodation for three consecutive months. This was the protection, which was actually contemplated under Section 13, prior to Section 13 being substituted in the year 1983. Till 1983, thus, the protection could not be availed by any tenant on the ground of payment of rent by him during the proceeding for eviction or Appeal. 20. After Section 13 was substituted in 1983, the legislative intent marks a shift. The tenant is obliged not only when a Suit or other proceeding is filed by the landlord to deposit the amount in terms of Section 13, but he is compelled by law, even after an Order of Eviction has been passed against him and when he challenges the Decree or Order for Eviction by way of an Appeal or other proceeding, to deposit within one month of the institution of the Appeal or other proceeding the amount equal to the rent. He may also, on an application made to the court, deposit the amount or pay within such further time, as the court may allow. The amount, to be paid by the tenant, is to be calculated at the rate of the rent at which it was paid. So far, there is no controversy. 21. The conundrum is introduced by the following words in Section 13 “for the period for which the tenant may have made default”. It is here that the debate sharpens. The respondent-landlord would emphasise that the Law-Giver has only intended that the protection from eviction, on the ground of arrears of rent, would be applicable in an Appeal or other proceeding by the tenant against the Decree or Order for eviction on such ground. In other words, the interpretation, placed by the respondent, can be summed-up as follows. In a case, where there is a Suit filed by the landlord for eviction, invoking Section 12(1)(a), alleging that the tenant has fallen in arrears of rent and an Order of Eviction is passed, then, if a tenant were to appeal or file any other proceeding, in such a case, the tenant must deposit the amount of rent for the period, for which, the tenant may have made default.

Result 28
Supreme Court of India
Imdad Ali vs Keshav Chand And Ors
Honourable Judges S.B. Sinha, A.R. Lakshmanan
Date of Judgment: 19 Feb 2003
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

The flouting of the law, the sin under the Rent Act must be the sin of the tenant sought to be evicted, and not that of his father or predecessor in interest. Respondent inherited the tenancy, not the sin, if any, of his father. The law in its wisdom seeks to punish the guilty who commits the sin, and not his son who is innocent of the rent law offence. It being a penal provision in the sense that it visits the violator with the punishment of eviction, it must be strictly construed, for it causes less misery to be sheltered in a jail, than to be shelterless without. Be that as it may, the conclusion recorded by the High Court is fault-fee." Clauses (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 is in the following terms: "(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only namely:- (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner." The said Section, therefore, does not make any provision like the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act to the effect "a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant'. Under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act having regard to the interpretation clauses as noticed hereinbefore, a tenant remains a tenant so long as the tenancy continues. The thrust, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 12 is upon ' any accommodation'. Default in payment of rent by a tenant, thus, is in respect of any accommodation. A further default would also be in respect of the same accommodation. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 provides for an exception to the general rule contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 that in the event a tenant becomes a defaulter he is liable to be evicted. An exemption granted in favour of a tenant in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 12, if read in conjunction with the proviso appended thereto, must be held to be for one time only. Proviso appended to sub-section (3) of Section 12 controls the main provisions. The exemption contained in sub-section (3) of Section 12, thus, is not extended to a tenant who becomes a defaulter for more than once. It matters not whether such default is made by the original tenant or by his successor inasmuch as the successor-in-interest of the original tenant continues to be a tenant within the meaning of the provisions thereof. By reason of death of the original tenant a new tenancy is riot created. A successor-in-interest of a tenant holds his tenancy right subject to rights and obligations of his predecessor. He does not and cannot claim a higher right than his predecessor.

Result 29
Supreme Court of India
Leela Soni And Ors vs Rajesh Goyal And Ors
Honourable Judges S.S.M.Quadri
Date of Judgment: 03 Sep 2001
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

It may be noticed that the rigour of clause (a) of sub-section (1) is softened by sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act which forbids the court from making an order of eviction against the tenant on the said ground if the tenant complies with Section 13 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act enables a tenant to deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord the arrears of rent within one month of service of writ of summons or notice of appeal or other proceeding, or within such further time as the court may allow, and thereafter continue to deposit or pay the rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month, till the decision of the suit, appeal or proceedings, as the case may be. Sub- section (2) of Section 13 deals with payment of rent in case of dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant and is not relevant for our purpose. Sub-section (5) of Section 13 directs that if a tenant makes deposit or payment under sub-sections (1) and (2) of that section, no decree or order shall be made by the Court for the recovery of possession of the accommodation on the ground of default in payment of rent by the tenant. In such a case, the Court is enabled to allow such cost to the landlord, as it may deem fit. Sub-section (6) which is supplement to sub-section (5) of Section 13, says that if a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount as required by that section, the Court may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit, appeal or proceedings, as the case may be. Clause (o) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 contains yet another ground for eviction of a tenant. It provides that if the tenant has also taken possession of such portion of accommodation which is not included in the accommodation let to him, without the written permission of the landlord, and which the tenant has not evicted in spite of a written notice of the landlord in that behalf, he may seek eviction of the tenant from the suit accommodation.

Result 30
Supreme Court of India
Brahmanand vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi & Anr
Honourable Judges V.R. Krishnaiyer, Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, Jaswant Singh
Date of Judgment: 11 Apr 1977
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

The landlord sued' for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent as provided in s. 3 of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Section 3(1) (a) states, among one of the grounds of eviction, "that the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand." ' In the present case, the complaint of the plaintiff was that the rent was not paid but was deposited into court regularly. The trial court as well as the High Court took the view that such prompt deposits of rent into court did not satisfy the provisions of s. 3(1)(a) since it is not equivalent to payment of rent to the landlord. Counsel for the appellant contends. that s. 7-C(6) of the Act strikes a different note. It reads: "In any case where a deposit has been made, as aforesaid, it shall be deemed that the rent has been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord. (emphasis supplied)" S. 7-C(1)enables deposits of rent to be made when a landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant. In the present case the facts are glaring. The relations between the parties appears to be extremely strained and they are living in adjacent premises. There was a criminal case by the tenant against the landlord as early as 1969 for offences under ss. 323, 504, 506, 352, 354 and 452 I.P.C. The case ended in an acquittal but the relations did not improve. Even now there is a pending prosecution by the tenant of the landlord for offences of a serious nature. It is common ground that not merely bit- terness and friction but potentially violent terms mar the life of these parties. In such a situation s. 7-C of the Act has to be .read realistically. It is not. necessary for the tenant to create a situation, of tension and Violence by physically offering the rent into the hands of the landlord.

Relevant High Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024

Result 1
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajan Alias Raj Kumar vs Rakesh Kumar
Honourable Judges Mukul Mudgal
Date of Judgment: 7 January 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied:- (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building or rented land with fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable; Provided that if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) noted that the landlord-tenant litigation accounts for a major part of litigation pending in Courts of law or before statutory authorities. It was further noticed that substantial number of cases consists of those, wherein eviction is sought on the ground of non-payment of rent by a tenant. As per proviso added to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act, it is the duty of a tenant to tender rent alongwith costs etc. on the first date of hearing, after his service, in an application for ejectment, failing which he may have to vacate the premises in question. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case also noted that there is always a dispute as to how much amount is due from a tenant and to resolve the above said dispute no mechanism had been provided in the Act. In that context, it was held as under:- " 16. There may be unscrupulous landlords, who with the proviso of placing the tenants in a quandary and thereby earning an easy order of eviction may highly inflate the claim. For example, the landlord may claim the arrears at a highly inflated rate of rent, or may claim rent alleging it to be in arrears though the same had already stood paid and for which the landlord chose to issue receipts for payment, or there may be a bonafide dispute as to the rate at which the rent was paid or is payable. Several other State legislations provide for an interim or provisional order being passed by the Court or the Rent Controller, resolving the dispute momentarily by a judicial order, with which order the tenant should comply and failing which the tenant may suffer adverse consequences.

Result 2
Bombay High Court
Nikhilesh Keshrichand Jhaveri And Ors vs M.S Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. And Ors
Honourable Judges Sandeep V. Marne
Date of Judgment: 16 April 2024
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 35
   
   
   

The Apex Court held in para 23 as under: 23.The second contention that, the appellant's having paid the arrears of rent within 2 months of the institution of the suit, there would be no forfeiture of the tenancy has no force in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. Sub- section (2) permits the landlord to institute a, suit for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent after the expiration of one month from the service of the notice demanding the arrears of rent, and clause (a) of sub-section (3) empowers the Court to pass a decree in case the rent had been payable by the 16 April 2024 Neeta Sawant WP-12584-2022-FC month, there was no dispute about the amount of standard rent, the arrears of rent, had been for a period of six months and the tenant had neglected to make the payment within a month of the service of the notice of demand. The tenant's paying the arrears of rent after the institution of the suit therefore does not affect his liability to eviction and the Court's power to pass a decree for eviction. It is true that the expression used in clause (a) of sub-section (3) "is the Court may pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession", but this does not mean as contended for the appellant, that the Court has discretion to pass or not to pass a decree for eviction in case the other conditions mentioned in that clause are satisfied. The landlord became entitled to recover possession when the tenant failed to pay rent and this right in him is not taken away by any other provision in the Act. The Court is therefore bound in law to pass the decree when the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 12 are satisfied. This is also clear from a comparison of the language used in clause (a) with the language used in clause (b) of sub-section (3) which deals with a suit for eviction which does not come within cause (a) and provides that no decree for eviction shall be passed in such a suit if on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in court the standard rent then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court.

Result 3
Delhi High Court
Sukhdev Raj Arora (Decd.) Thr. Lr vs M.K. Bhargava
Honourable Judges Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Date of Judgment: 8 January 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
   
   
   

The proceedings are for eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act. The said Act puts a clog on the right of the landlord to evict the tenant, even after the term for which the premises were let has expired, save on the grounds of eviction provided under Act. There has been a general feeling, also found expression in several judgments of this court and the apex court that most of the tenants do not deserve the protection from eviction provided by the Rent Act and that the said law with the passage of time has lost its utility or significance and has become otiose. A new law to substitute the old Act has been enacted but not notified. The tenants are aware that they are enjoying the tenancy premises at rates much below the market rent and only owing to such outdated legislation. Such protection is not available to tenants of newly constructed premises or of premises the rent whereof is above Rs.3,500/- p.m. The measure of negligence of the tenant is to be in this background. 14. The ground of eviction in the present case was of non-payment of rent. The petitioner/tenant rightly or wrongly did not pay/deposit the rent even in spite of a notice of demand having been issued by the respondent/landlord. The petitioner/tenant in the written statement to the petition for eviction admitted having not paid rent and also admitted having received the notice; his defence is of a doubt as to to whom the rent was payable, whether to the respondent/landlord or to the brother of the respondent/landlord. The Rent Act provides a remedy for a tenant in such doubt. Such tenant can deposit the rent in this court under Section 27. The petitioner/tenant in the present case did not deposit the rent in the court. 15. The provisions of the Rent Act as aforesaid are clear. On a petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act being filed, the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act necessarily has to be made before the matter is listed for evidence. It is inconceivable that the counsel for the petitioner/tenant did not advise so to the petitioner/tenant. The fact that it was so advised is also borne out from the averment of the petitioner/tenant of having made an offer in the written statement itself for deposit of such rent.

Result 4
Bombay High Court
Shri Vasant Mahadeo Gujar vs Shri Baitulla Ismail Shaikh And Anr
Honourable Judges M. S. Sonak
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2015
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 17
   
   
   

Accordingly, the issue arose as to whether a decree of eviction could be made as there was no compliance with the conditions prescribed under Section 12(3)(a) of the 1947 Act. The learned Single Judge of this Court (R.R. Bhole, J.) held that no decree of eviction would be made as long as the tenant was ready and willing to pay the rent. The relevant observations are contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, which reads thus: 5. Section 12 of the Rent Act provides for ejectment of the tenant by the landlord. It is divided into four clauses. The first clause prohibits a landlord from recovering possession of any premises so long as tenant pays and is ready and willing to pay the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of the Rent Act. Therefore, as long as the tenant is ready and willing to pay and as long as he observes the conditions of tenancy, landlord cannot recover possession of the premises. The second clause directs the landlord to give a notice before a 10 AIR 1972 Bom 273 DSS cra-770-13 & 167-14 suit on the ground of non-payment of rent is filed. A landlord under this clause cannot file a suit until expiration of one month next after the notice of the demand of standard rent. The third clause deals with two kinds of arrears, Sub-clause (a) deals with a tenant who is in arrears for a period of six months or more; sub-clause (b) deals with a tenant, who is in arrears for less than six months and sub-clause (c) provides that if a tenant raises a dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases he is allowed to raise that dispute; and if the tenant makes the payment of which he is arrears within one month of the notice, then the landlord cannot recover possession of the premises. But if he does not raise any dispute and if he neglects to pay until expiration of the period of one month after the notice then the Court has no other alternative but to pass a decree for eviction.

Result 5
Delhi High Court
Delhi High CourtSky Land International Pvt. Ltd. vs Kavita P Lalwani
Honourable Judges J.R. Midha
Date of Judgment: 25 May 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 67
   
   
   

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny the title of the landlord meaning thereby that so long as the tenant has not surrendered the possession, he cannot dispute the title of the landlord. Howsoever, defective the title of the landlord may be, a tenant is not permitted to dispute the same unless he has surrendered the possession of his landlord. 26.14 A lease of a immovable property is determined by forfeiture in case the lessee renounces his character by setting up a title in a third person. The effect of such a disclaimer is that it brings to an end the relationship of landlord and tenant and such a tenant cannot continue in possession. Section 111(g)(2) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is based on public policy and the principle of estoppel. 26.15 There is a flood of litigation unnecessarily burdening the Courts only because obdurate tenants refuse to vacate the tenanted premises even after their tenancy period expires by efflux of time or the monthly tenancy has been brought to an end by service of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It has become quite common for the tenants whose tenancy has been terminated to continue the occupation to drive the landlords to file suits for possession and mesne profits and thereafter raise false claims and defences to continue the possession of the premises. The motivation of the tenant to litigate with the landlord is that he wants to continue the occupation on payment of rent fixed years ago. The continuation of possession in such cases should therefore be permitted upon payment of market rent. In that case, inherent intent of the unscrupulous tenant to continue frivolous litigation would be reduced to a large extent. 26.16 In all proceedings relating to possession of an immovable property against an erstwhile tenant, the Court should broadly take into consideration the prevailing market rentals in the locality for similar premises and fix adhoc amount which the person continuing in possession must pay or deposit as security. If such amount, as may be fixed by the Court, is not paid or deposited as security, the Court may remove the person and appoint a receiver of the property or strike out the claim or defence. This is a very important exercise for balancing equities.

Result 6
Bombay High Court
Shri Vasant Mahadeo Gujar vs Shri Baitulla Ismail Shaikh And Anr
Honourable Judges M. S. Sonak
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2015
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 18
   
   
   

So far as sub-clause (b) is concerned the tenant is asked to pay the arrears on the first date of the hearing of the suit or before such other date as the Court may fix and if he continues to pay rent regularly in Court, then no decree can be passed against him but if after notice and after filing of the suit he neither pays the arrears on the first date of the hearing of the suit nor before such other date as the Court may fix, then a decree for eviction shall have to be passed. We are not concerned with the fourth clause because that clause merely deals with disbursement of the amount paid by the tenant in Court. 6. Now, therefore, under Section 12 of the Rent Act this Court has to see whether the tenant was ready and willing to pay rent; whether the landlord had given him necessary notice; whether in this case, which is governed by Section 12(3)(a), the tenant is in arrears of rent for a period of six months or more and whether the tenant has neglected to make payment of the same. We have seen that the respondent had been refusing to accept rent sent to him by money orders. The arrears of rent according to the notice given by the landlord is for a period from 1-11-64 to 1-5-65. The question, in view of the fact that the tenant had sent rent by money orders and is whether the tenant was still in arrears of rent. If the landlord had accepted rent, the tenant would certainly not have been in arrears and there could not have been any cause of action for DSS cra-770-13 & 167-14 the notice to be served by the landlord on the tenant. Because the landlord had been refusing to accept rent for the period for which he was said to be in arrears the cause of action arose. In my view the landlord cannot take advantage of his conduct in not accepting rent sent by the tenant and then give a notice saying that the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than six months. The intention of the legislature when enacting Rent Act could not have been to protect the landlord who refuses to accept rent and after six months turns round to say that the tenant is in arrears of rent for a period of six months or more. In my view, therefore the facts and circumstances of the instant case show that the petitioner - tenant was ready and willing to pay rent. The facts also show that the tenant was not in arrears of rent voluntarily.

Result 7
Delhi High Court
Raghbir Singh vs Sheela Wanti & Anr.
Honourable Judges Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Date of Judgment: 18 February 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

It is obligatory on the tenant under law to tender rent month by month to the landlord. In the present case, the tenant was having the account number of the landlord but despite having account number of the landlord, he was not depositing even meager rent of Rs.80 per month in the account of landlord up to September 1992 and @ Rs.88/- per month from October 1992 in the account of the landlord. This account number was given by the landlord to the tenant only to facilitate deposit of the rent. The landlord in this case had to serve notice upon the tenant through an advocate for claiming meager amount of Rs.80 per month. Hiring of services of an advocate does not come free. The landlord may have to spend more amount in hiring an advocate for claiming rent, than the rent itself. The statute provides protection to the tenant but not at the cost of perpetual harassment to the landlord. 9. Section 14(1) (a) specifically provides that on receipt of notice the tenant has to pay whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him. There can be no doubt that payment of rent is an obligation of the tenant and 'whole of arrears' of rent would only mean that the rent payable up-to-date on the date of tendering of rent. The legislature cannot be intended to have provided that the landlord will keep on serving notice every time on the tenant and then only the tenant would tender arrears of rent as demanded in the notice and unless it is not demanded in the notice, the arrears of rent CM(M) 133/1999 Raghbir Singh vs. Sheela Wanti & Anr. Page 7 Of 11 would not be tendered. The tendering of 'whole of arrears of rent' as envisaged under Section 14(1) (a) cannot be construed as arrears demanded in the notice by the landlord. I, therefore, consider that learned RCT went wrong in observing that the tenant was only obliged to pay arrears only up to September 1992 as demanded and he was not obliged to pay the whole of arrears legally recoverable from him on the date of tendering. 10. This Court in Ashok Kumar vs. Ram Gopal 22(1982) DLT 188 observed as under: "13. Another contention which has been raised by Mr. Makhija is that a petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent can only be filed for those arrears for which notice of demand was given and which amount is still in arrears on the date of the petition.

Result 8
Delhi High Court
Delhi High CourtSky Land International Pvt. Ltd. vs Kavita P Lalwani
Honourable Judges J.R. Midha
Date of Judgment: 25 May 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 43
   
   
   

It has become quite common for tenants, whose tenancies have been terminated validly, to continue occupation as trespassers, drive the landlords to file suits for eviction and profits with a view to see how far the patience of the landlords may last or how far the landlords or their legal representatives could fight the tenants- particularly if the tenant had stopped payment of admitted rents. It is rather unfortunate that even public sector bodies like the appellant are taking such postures and driving landlords from pillar to post..." (Emphasis supplied) 21. Continuation of Possession upon Payment of Market Rent 21.1 In Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan, (2011) 7 SCC 755, the Supreme Court observed that the motivation of the tenant to litigate with the landlord is that he doesn€Ÿt want to pay the prevalent market rate of rent to the landlord and continues to pay the rent fixed years ago. The observation of the Supreme Court is as under:- "1. .... One half of the lis between landlord and tenant would not reach courts, if tenant agrees to pay the present prevalent market rate of rent of the tenanted premises to the landlord. In that case landlord would also be satisfied that he is getting adequate, just and proper return on the property. But the trend in the litigation between landlord and tenant shows otherwise. Tenant is happy in paying the meager amount of rent fixed years ago and landlord continues to find out various grounds under the Rent Acts, to evict him somehow or the other...€– 21.2 In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (supra), the Supreme Court held that inherent interest to continue frivolous litigation by unscrupulous litigants would be reduced to a large extent, if continuation of possession is permitted upon payment of market rent. The Supreme Court held as under:- €•Mesne Profits 90. Experience has shown that all kinds of pleadings are introduced and even false and fabricated documents are filed in civil cases because there is an inherent profit in continuation of possession. In a large number of cases, honest litigants suffer and dishonest litigants get undue benefit by grant or refusal of an injunction because the Courts do not critically examine pleadings and documents on record.

Result 9
Madras High Court
M/S.Primex Healthcare And Research ... vs Mr.A.A.L.Ramaswamy
Honourable Judges R.N.Manjula
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 23
   
   
   

Neither does it state that the landlord€™s right to seek eviction before the Rent Court will get expired at the end of 6 months of holding over tenancy. It is at the risk or at the will and pleasure of the landlord to allow his tenant to hold over possession for more than 6 months. But once the landlord chooses not to extend the agreement, he can immediately file a petition for eviction either under Section 5(1). If the landlord allows the tenant to continue to be in possession by receiving rent, without any written extension of the agreement, his right to seek eviction opens at the end of 6 months of such holding over under Section 5(3). While Section 21 provides grounds for eviction, Section 5(1) and (3) provide https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 situations when the tenant should vacate or get evicted. In fact they are deadlines for the tenant to vacate the premises. 40. Since the terms of contract or contractual obligations are inviolable, certain specific grounds for eviction during the subsistence of the contract is provided under Section 21. In other words, Section 21 is an exception to the general law that the terms of contract are inviolable. The constitutional validity for providing such grounds for eviction under the Rent law, during the continuation of the tenancy agreement, has already been upheld by the constitutional bench of the Supreme court in Raval€™s case, as stated above. 41. Section 5(3) of the New Act has just limited the time for holding over for six months, but by accepting the principle of €˜tenancy by holding over€™. In my view, it is an yet another enabling provision by which the landlord can knock the doors of the rent Court for eviction, despite he had chosen to receive the rent for some time after the expiry of the tenancy, but not intended to renew the tenancy agreement. Since the situations for seeking eviction under Section 5(1) or 5 (3) would arise only after the termination of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 the contractual tenancy, the landlord is not under any obligation to plead or prove any of the grounds under Section 21(2) for getting re-possession. In other words, after the expiry of the tenancy, a landlord can seek eviction without the aid of Section 21(2).

Result 10
Madras High Court
M/S.Primex Healthcare And Research ... vs Mr.A.A.L.Ramaswamy
Honourable Judges R.N.Manjula
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 23
   
   
   

Neither does it state that the landlord€™s right to seek eviction before the Rent Court will get expired at the end of 6 months of holding over tenancy. It is at the risk or at the will and pleasure of the landlord to allow his tenant to hold over possession for more than 6 months. But once the landlord chooses not to extend the agreement, he can immediately file a petition for eviction either under Section 5(1). If the landlord allows the tenant to continue to be in possession by receiving rent, without any written extension of the agreement, his right to seek eviction opens at the end of 6 months of such holding over under Section 5(3). While Section 21 provides grounds for eviction, Section 5(1) and (3) provide https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 situations when the tenant should vacate or get evicted. In fact they are deadlines for the tenant to vacate the premises. 40. Since the terms of contract or contractual obligations are inviolable, certain specific grounds for eviction during the subsistence of the contract is provided under Section 21. In other words, Section 21 is an exception to the general law that the terms of contract are inviolable. The constitutional validity for providing such grounds for eviction under the Rent law, during the continuation of the tenancy agreement, has already been upheld by the constitutional bench of the Supreme court in Raval€™s case, as stated above. 41. Section 5(3) of the New Act has just limited the time for holding over for six months, but by accepting the principle of €˜tenancy by holding over€™. In my view, it is an yet another enabling provision by which the landlord can knock the doors of the rent Court for eviction, despite he had chosen to receive the rent for some time after the expiry of the tenancy, but not intended to renew the tenancy agreement. Since the situations for seeking eviction under Section 5(1) or 5 (3) would arise only after the termination of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 the contractual tenancy, the landlord is not under any obligation to plead or prove any of the grounds under Section 21(2) for getting re-possession. In other words, after the expiry of the tenancy, a landlord can seek eviction without the aid of Section 21(2).

Result 11
Madras High Court
M/S.Primex Healthcare And Research ... vs Mr.A.A.L.Ramaswamy
Honourable Judges R.N.Manjula
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 23
   
   
   

Neither does it state that the landlord€™s right to seek eviction before the Rent Court will get expired at the end of 6 months of holding over tenancy. It is at the risk or at the will and pleasure of the landlord to allow his tenant to hold over possession for more than 6 months. But once the landlord chooses not to extend the agreement, he can immediately file a petition for eviction either under Section 5(1). If the landlord allows the tenant to continue to be in possession by receiving rent, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 without any written extension of the agreement, his right to seek eviction opens at the end of 6 months of such holding over under Section 5(3). While Section 21 provides grounds for eviction, Section 5(1) and (3) provide situations when the tenant should vacate or get evicted. In fact they are deadlines for the tenant to vacate the premises. 40. Since the terms of contract or contractual obligations are inviolable, certain specific grounds for eviction during the subsistence of the contract is provided under Section 21. In other words, Section 21 is an exception to the general law that the terms of contract are inviolable. The constitutional validity for providing such grounds for eviction under the Rent law, during the continuation of the tenancy agreement, has already been upheld by the constitutional bench of the Supreme court in Raval€™s case, as stated above. 41. Section 5(3) of the New Act has just limited the time for holding over for six months, but by accepting the principle of €˜tenancy by holding over€™. In my view, it is an yet another enabling provision by which the landlord can knock the doors of the rent Court for eviction, despite he had chosen to receive the rent for some time after the expiry of the tenancy, but not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 intended to renew the tenancy agreement. Since the situations for seeking eviction under Section 5(1) or 5 (3) would arise only after the termination of the contractual tenancy, the landlord is not under any obligation to plead or prove any of the grounds under Section 21(2) for getting re-possession. In other words, after the expiry of the tenancy, a landlord can seek eviction without the aid of Section 21(2).

Result 12
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshamma And Ors. vs B.P. Thirumala Setty And Ors.
Honourable Judges Manjula Chellur
Date of Judgment: 19 September 2005
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 29
   
   
   

It is the boundant duty of the tenant to pay the rent to the landlord regularly and in case of not establishing sufficient cause by him why he could not pay or deposit the rent as ordered by the Court, the High Court should not grant time to deposit the rent. Therefore, it is an obligation on the tenant to pay the rent regularly as the same is not payable at his option. If a rule prescribes notifying the landlord either of the deposit or of the steps being taken to make such deposit, it is incumbent upon the tenant to notify the landlord. Failure of such notification would go against the tenant. The tenant must be careful whenever there is an order to deposit or pay all the arrears of rent and also regular payment of future rents that accrue from time to time. Any lapse on the part of the tenant in complying with such directions, without sufficient cause, would debar him from even contesting the eviction petition. It is further held, the Courts cannot treat the payment made at irregular intervals as sufficient compliance. If permission of the Court is taken for depositing the arrears of rent, the Court should consider the procedure and time consumed to make such deposit. In that situation, the date of deposit should relate back to the date of filing as the request for such deposit was made while presenting the revision petition. 50. Coming to the facts of the cases on hand, though originally the landlords before the Trial Court initiated proceedings under one or the other ground of Section 21(1) of 1991 Act, by virtue of the repeal of the old Act with the introduction of new Rent Act of 1999, these proceedings would get attracted to the grounds of eviction enumerated under Section 27(2) of the new Act. During the pendency of the proceedings evidence of both the parties also came to be recorded. At that point of time the new Act came into force. Then, the landlords chose to seek immediate possession of the premises claiming benefit under the new Act conferred upon certain class of landlords. Those grounds of eviction came to be allowed. Now the Court has to see whether the benefit which would accrue to the landlord in the case of nonpayment or non-deposit of rent by the tenant during the pendency of the proceedings either before the Trial Court or before the Revisional Court would accrue to the landlords coming under classified category?

Result 13
Bombay High Court
Shri Vasant Mahadeo Gujar vs Shri Baitulla Ismail Shaikh And Anr
Honourable Judges M. S. Sonak
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2015
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 15
   
   
   

35] Section 15(1) of the Rent Act, in terms provides that a landlord shall not be entitled to eviction of a tenant, so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are DSS cra-770-13 & 167-14 consistent with the provisions of this Act. Clause 15(3) of the Rent Act, however, is a legislative injunction to the Courts from making a decree of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and permitted increases, if , within a period of ninety days from the date of service of summons in the suit, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due together with simple interest at the prescribed rates and thereafter, continues to pay or tenders the same till the suit is finally decided and also pays cost of the suit as directed by the Court. 36] The Appeal Court has made a decree of eviction by merely recording that the applicants failed to comply with the provisions of Section 15(3), in as much as arrears of rent, permitted increases together with interest, were not deposited in the Court within ninety days from the date of service of summons in the suit. There is no consideration whatsoever of the tenants' plea that the tenants had paid or in any case were ready and willing to pay rents and permitted increases to the landlords, but it was the landlords who had refused to accept the same. DSS cra-770-13 & 167-14 37] From the scheme of Section 15 of the Rent Act, it is clear that benefit under Section 15(3) of the Rent Act can be availed of by a tenant, even if such tenant is admittedly, in default. From the tenor of Section 15(3) of the Rent Act, it does appear that no Court can make a decree of eviction on the grounds of default, where such tenant deposits within ninety days, arrears of rent, permitted increases and complies with other prescribed requirements. This, however, does not mean and imply that resort to benefit under Section 15(3) of the Rent Act is only mode available to a tenant to avoid a decree of eviction on the ground of default. The tenant, can always establish that he has paid or was always ready and willing to pay the rent and the permitted increases to the landlord and on such basis avoid a decree of eviction.

Result 14
Madras High Court
K.Mani vs M.D.Jayavel
Honourable Judges G.Rajasuria
Date of Judgment: 10 June 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 14
   
   
   

There is no perversity or illegality in the finding of both the Courts below that there has been a default in the payment of rent. . . . . " I am of the same view that an oral agreement to sell would not terminate the landlord-tenant relationship and even if there was an agreement of sale it had to be in writing and the agreement itself should, in clear terms, specify that the landlord-tenant relationship was being terminated and that there was no future liability on the part of the tenant to pay rent to the landlord and in the absence of such specific recitals in the written statement the mere oral agreement of sale would not exonerate the tenant from continuing to pay rent to the landlord. In this case, admittedly, the tenant has not paid any rent to the respondent herein, even after the notice. The explanation offered by the petitioner herein is not at all acceptable. 12. Ramanujam, J.in an identical case, reported in Duraisami Nadar v. Nagammal, 1981 (1) M.L.J.35 observed as follows: "A landlady filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on two grounds (1) wilful default in payment of monthly rent, and (ii) bona fide requirement of the building for the purpose of running a hotel business by her son. The application was resisted by the tenant on the ground that the relationship of landlady and tenant had come to an end by reason of his having entered in an agreement to purchase the property and that the requirement of the landlady for the purpose of running her son's hotel business was not bona fide. The Rent Controller accepted the defence of the tenant that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the landlady and held there was no relationship of landlady and tenant after the agreement. However, the appellate authority held that notwithstanding the agreement of sale, the relationship of landlady and tenant continued and ordered eviction. On revision against the order. Held: In this case there was no evidence that the parties agreed that the relationship of landlady and tenant should cease and the tenant's possession should be traced only to the agreement of sale. By merely entering into an agreement of sale the tenant did not acquire any right in the property.

Result 15
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chander Bhushan Anand And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Finance ...
Honourable Judges Surya Kant
Date of Judgment: 9 November 2004
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 16
   
   
   

While Section 2 of the Act contains definitions, Section 3 empowers the Government to "exempt any particular building or rented land or any class of buildings or rented lands" from the provisions of this Act. Section 4 provides the mode of determination of fair rent and Section 5 provides how an increase in fair rent can be made. Section 6 prohibits a landlord not to claim any thing in excess to the fair rent whereas Section 7 bars claim of any fine or premium from the tenant for the grant, renewal or continuation of tenancy. Section 8, however, entitles the landlord to recover the unpaid rent whereas Section 9 authorises him to increase rent on account of imposition of a fresh rate, cess or tax in respect of the building or the rented land. Section 10 restrains the landlord from interfering with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant whereas Section 11 prohibits conversion of residential building into a non-residential building. Section 12 casts a statutory duty upon the landlord to carry out necessary repairs and/or to pay the cost to the tenant for carrying out the same. Section 13 spells out the grounds upon which the tenant can be evicted by the landlord, namely: (i) non-payment of rent; (ii) bona fide personal necessity; (iii) sub-letting by the tenant; (iv) change of user; (v) material impairment in the value and utility of the building; (vii) the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause; (viii) requirement of the premises by the landlord for his own occupation; (ix) the building has become unfit for human habitation; and/or (x) the landlord is a specified landlord and needs immediate possession of the premises etc. Rest of the provisions of the Act have hardly any bearing in relation to the issue involved in this case.

Result 16
Delhi High Court
Sangeeta Batra vs M/S Vnd Foods & Ors.
Honourable Judges Vipin Sanghi
Date of Judgment: 1 July 2015
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
   
   
   

In this case, proceedings were initiated under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, inter alia, on the ground of non payment of rent by the tenant. The Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) of the said Act, directing deposit of arrears of rent and directing payment of interim rent from month to month. During pendency of the eviction proceedings, a part of the tenanted premises was destroyed by fire. The tenant did not deposit the interim rent fixed by the Controller. Consequently, the landlord moved an application under section 15(7) of the said Act praying that the defence of the tenant be struck out. The tenant/appellant then contended that the landlord was not entitled to claim rent as part of the premises had been destroyed by fire, and the landlord had refused-either to reconstruct the destroyed premises, or permit the appellant/tenant to do so. The application of the landlord under section 15(7) was rejected by the Rent Controller. However, in first appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent/landlord. Consequently, the tenant preferred a second appeal before the High Court. 29. This Court rejected the appellants/tenants submission that it had the right to suspend the payment of rent on the destruction of the premises and upon the refusal of the respondent/landlord to either reconstruct himself, or permit the tenant to do so. The discussion in the said decision reads as follows: "8. On the second point on merits, it is contended that it was the appellants' right to suspend payment of rent on the destruction of the premises and upon the refusal of the respondent either to reconstruct it himself or permit the appellants to do so. Let me first examine the position under the Transfer of Property Act. In the case of the tenancy premises being wholly destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit by fire etc. for the purposes for which it was let, the only right given to the lessee by section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act is to exercise the option of treating the lease to be void. In such a case the lessee cannot continue to hold on to the premises or say that the lease continues but he will not pay the rent.

Result 17
Delhi High Court
Permanand Vijay Kumar vs Smt. Savitri Devi & Ors.
Honourable Judges Navin Chawla
Date of Judgment: 4 March 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
   
   
   

18. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether, on the tenant failing to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Act on deemed refusal of the landlord to accept the tendered rent, the tenant becomes liable for eviction under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Act. 19. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that where, in response to the legal notice sent by the landlord, the tenant "tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally 18:43 CM(M) No.15/2021 Page 9 recoverable from him within two months", the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act is liable to be dismissed. For the purposes of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, in case of any deemed refusal of the landlord to accept arrears of rent, the tenant is under no further obligation to make such deposit under Section 27 of the Act. 20. He further submits that even otherwise, in the facts of the present case, eviction under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code could not have been passed as there were various disputed questions of fact, including whether the rent was payable quarterly or on a monthly basis, to be adjudicated by the learned Tribunal. He submits that if the plea of the petitioner herein is to be accepted that the rent was payable on a quarterly basis, in fact and as a consequence thereof, on the date of the legal notice, there was no rent due or payable by the petitioner and the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act itself was not maintainable. 21. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Goel & Ors. vs. Kishan Chand, (2009) 7 SCC 658 and of this Court in Abid vs. Kausar Parveen, 2015 (1) RCR (Rent) 522, submits that it is no longer res integra that incase the landlord refuses to accept the rent tendered by the tenant, the tenant must take recourse to Section 27 of the Act and deposit the rent before the learned Controller. The provisions of Section 27 of the Act are mandatory in nature and on the failure of the tenant to take recourse to the same, the tenant would not be entitled to any protection, and decree under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act is liable to be passed against him.

Result 18
Delhi High Court
Institute Of Human Behaviour & Allied ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
Honourable Judges Gita Mittal
Date of Judgment: 5 March 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 80
   
   
   

Different considerations on construction of pleadings may arise between pleadings in the mufossil court and pleadings in the original side of the High Court. 21. So read, the plaintiffs in its plaint merely ascribed that he continued to be in possession of the tenanted premises after the oral agreement of sale was entered into by and between the parties pursuant to or in furtherance thereof. xxx 23. Under the provisions of the Transfer of Properly Act, a landlord can evict his tenant only upon service of proper notice as envisaged under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. A lease can be determined by forfeiture inter alia when the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself. xxx 27. In Sheela and Ors. v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash : [2002]2SCR177 whereupon Mr. Nageshwara Rao placed strong reliance, Lahoti, J., as the learned Chief Justice then was, while construing the provisions of IA Nos.4518 & 8011/2006 in CS(OS) No.670/2006 123 Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 observed: xxx "17. In our opinion, denial of landlord's title or disclaimer of tenancy by tenant is an act which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord and hence is a ground for eviction of tenant within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. To amount to such denial or disclaimer, as would entail forfeiture of tenancy rights and incur the liability to be evicted, the tenant should have renounced his character as tenant and in clear and unequivocal terms set up title of the landlord in himself or in a third party. A tenant bona fide calling upon the landlord to prove his ownership or putting the landlord to proof of his title so as to protect himself (i.e. the tenant) or to earn a protection made available to him by the rent control law but without disowning his character of possession over the tenancy premises as tenant cannot be said to have denied the title of landlord or disclaimed the tenancy. Such an act of the tenant does not attract applicability of Section 12(1)(c) abovesaid.

Result 19
Madras High Court
M/S.Primex Healthcare And Research ... vs Mr.A.A.L.Ramaswamy
Honourable Judges R.N.Manjula
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 30
   
   
   

Hence there are possibilities to flout the written tenancy agreement rule, subsequent to its expiry indirectly by way of filing applications for eviction any time under Section 21(2) (a) or under Section 5(1) and 5(3). 54. As a matter of clarity, I would like to add that the law of limitation applicable to suits for recovery possession is entirely on a different footing and it has nothing to do with the applications for eviction filed before the Rent Court. Even for any extraneous reasons if it is presumed that Article 137 of the Limitation Act should be invoked for Applications filed for eviction under Section 21(2) (a), 5(1) and 5(3), there can be a continuing cause of action for the landlord so long as his tenant occupies the premises and so long as the terms landlord and tenant is applicable to both the contractual and statutory tenancies. Since the term €˜tenant€™ is inapplicable only to those persons against whom order / decree for eviction has been passed, the cause of action for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 landlord to file an application for eviction shall continue to exist so long as the person in occupation of the premises falls under the definition of tenant. In fact the Act does not exclude the applicability of the Act to any type of landlords and tenants, but only to certain type of places and premises. Even while exempting certain premises, liberty is given to the owners of the exempted premises to opt to come under the purview of the Act by expressing the desire to the Rent Authority and avail the fast-track remedies. 55. The danger of depriving the status of tenant for those persons who continue to occupy the premises after the expiry of the agreement and driving the landlord to file a suit for ejectment, is to put the landlord to face the risk of law of limitation for recovery of possession, against his own tenant and also to undergo the time consuming civil court proceedings to the advantage of a defaulted tenant.

Result 20
Delhi High Court
Shri Ram Pistons & Rings Ltd. vs M/S. C.B.Agarwal Huf & Ors.
Honourable Judges Pradeep Nandrajog, J.R. Midha
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2008
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 28
   
   
   

74. The creation of every lease has its origin in a bilateral contract between the lessor and the lessee which necessarily includes the period for which the lessee is authorized to possess the tenanted premises. The moment this agreed period is over the tenancy expires by efflux of time. The obligation of the tenant to restore possession to the landlord comes into play. If he does not do so, the landlord gets a right to approach a civil court to seek recovery of possession. But, with the enactment of Rent Control Legislations, the contracts of tenancy as also all laws to the contrary were superseded by statutory enactments which gave right to a landlord to evict the tenant on grounds available under the Rent Control Law and none more. Special Tribunals of Rent Controllers were constituted under the Rent Control Legislations. Notwithstanding the lease having expired by efflux of time, these landlords, whose premises were covered by the Rent Control Legislations, were by the force of law compelled to receive rents from the tenants whose continued possession was not under a contract, but under a statute. Law treated such tenants to be statutory tenants and not contractual tenants. Thus, merely because the landlords received under compulsion of law rent from the tenants, same did not result in the continuation of the landlord tenant relationship due to the free volition of the landlord. Such tenants cannot claim to be tenants holding over because a tenancy holding over requires that the acceptance of rent by the landlord is with a consent for the tenancy to be continued. This flows out of a bare perusal of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 which reads as under:- "116. Effect of holding over-If a lessee or under- lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in section 106."

Result 21
Bombay High Court
Shri Vasant Mahadeo Gujar vs Shri Baitulla Ismail Shaikh And Anr
Honourable Judges M. S. Sonak
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2015
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 20
   
   
   

In fact the said Section 12 clearly contemplates in a negative manner that no suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by the landlord unless the landlord satisfies that the tenant was not ready and willing to tender and had not paid the standard rent and permitted increases for over a period of six months and in the event, the tenant was not ready and willing to tender standard rent and permitted increases, and that he has been in arrears of over a period of six months, then the landlord has to issue notice terminating the tenancy and demand the standard rent and permitted increases within a month after service of the notice. Even Section 12(3)(a) makes it clear that where the rent is payable by the month and there is no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, if such rent or increases are in arrears for a period of six months or more and the tenant neglects to make payment thereof until the expiration of period of one month after the notice as referred in Sub-section (2), the Court may pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession. By way of explanation, in the said section, it is provided that in any case where there is dispute as to the amount of standard rent or permitted increases recoverable under this Act the tenant shall be deemed to be ready and willing to pay such amount if, before the expiry of the period of one month after notice referred to in Sub-section (2), he makes an DSS cra-770-13 & 167-14 application to the Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increases specified in the order made by the Court. To put it in other words, the explanation is with regard to the procedure, when there is a dispute with regard to the standard rent. Where there is no dispute with regard to the standard rent, the tenant has to show that he was always ready and willing to tender rent and he must not be in arrears for more than six months and in the event, the tenant was in arrears for more than six months, the landlord has the right to serve notice of termination and demand rent and permitted increases, and if the tenant does not pay the same within one month, in such a case, the landlord will be entitled for a decree of eviction.

Result 22
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Raman Jain vs Raj Kumar Mehra And Another
Honourable Judges Sandeep Sharma
Date of Judgment: 2 January 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
   
   
   

In landlord tenant matter it is the bounden duty and obligation of the Court to ensure that the landlord gets rent which is akin to market rent. Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "11. The main reason for proliferation of landlord tenant matter is primarily because landlord do not get rent which is close to the market rent. In landlord tenant matter it is the bounden duty and obligation of the Court to ensure that the landlord gets rent which is akin to market rent. The High Court was quite justified in increasing the rent from ` 175/ - to ` 25,000/- in view of the facts of this case. - 18 - 12. For the reasons aforesaid, we direct that in case the non- applicant-tenant wants to stay in the premises for the aforesaid period then he would be obliged to pay rent at the . rate of `25,000/- with effect from 18th May, 2010 per month as fixed by the High Court of Delhi, otherwise the tenant is directed to vacate the premises within one month from today subject to filing usual undertaking within four weeks from today and give peaceful possession to the applicant-landlord along with arrears of rent with effect from 18th May, 2010. If the premises is not vacated within the time stipulated above, then the applicant-landlord would be at liberty to take police help and get the possession of the premises from the non- applicant-tenant. This application is, accordingly, disposed of." 19. Even a Division Bench of this court in Chaman Lal Bali versus State of Himachal Pradesh 2016(3) Shim. LC 1593, taking into consideration various judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, held that reasonable mesne profit, which may be equivalent to market rent, should be awarded to prevent the party in wrongful possession from taking undue advantage of lengthy delays in main proceedings.

Result 23
Madras High Court
M/S.Primex Healthcare And Research ... vs Mr.A.A.L.Ramaswamy
Honourable Judges R.N.Manjula
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 30
   
   
   

Hence there are possibilities to flout the written tenancy agreement rule, subsequent to its expiry indirectly by way of filing applications for eviction any time under Section 21(2) (a) or under Section 5(1) and 5(3). 54. As a matter of clarity, I would like to add that the law of limitation applicable to suits for recovery possession is entirely on a different footing and it has nothing to do with the applications for eviction filed before the Rent Court. Even for any extraneous reasons if it is presumed that Article 137 of the Limitation Act should be invoked for Applications filed for eviction under Section 21(2) (a), 5(1) and 5(3), there can be a continuing cause of action for the landlord so long as his tenant occupies the premises and so long as the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 terms landlord and tenant is applicable to both the contractual and statutory tenancies. Since the term €˜tenant€™ is inapplicable only to those persons against whom order / decree for eviction has been passed, the cause of action for the landlord to file an application for eviction shall continue to exist so long as the person in occupation of the premises falls under the definition of tenant. In fact the Act does not exclude the applicability of the Act to any type of landlords and tenants, but only to certain type of places and premises. Even while exempting certain premises, liberty is given to the owners of the exempted premises to opt to come under the purview of the Act by expressing the desire to the Rent Authority and avail the fast-track remedies. 55. The danger of depriving the status of tenant for those persons who continue to occupy the premises after the expiry of the agreement and driving the landlord to file a suit for ejectment, is to put the landlord to face the risk of law of limitation for recovery of possession, against his own tenant and also to undergo the time consuming civil court proceedings to the advantage of a defaulted tenant.

Result 24
Kerala High Court
Paul vs Saleena
Honourable Judges K.S. Radhakrishnan, Pius C. Kuriakose
Date of Judgment: 17 December 2003
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

Section 11(9) calls for a purposive interpretation so as to promote the purpose and object of the Act and not to circumvent the statutory obligations cast on the tenant by the Rent Control Act. 9. "Landlord" defined in Section 2(3) of the Act includes any person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others is one of the essential terms is the landlord-tenant relationship. If rent is not paid by the tenant Section 11(2) comes to the rescue of the landlord. Section 11(3) also enables the landlord to apply for an order of eviction if the landlord bonafide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. Section 11(4)(i) prohibits sublease as well as transfer of tenant's rights in the event of which it enables the landlord to apply for eviction of the tenant. Section 11(4)(ii) also would caution the tenant that he shall not use the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility, materially and permanently. Section 11(4)(iii) states that the Rent Control Court can order eviction if the tenant has in his possession a building or subsequently acquires possession of or puts up a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city, town or village. Section 11(4)(iv) enables the landlord to apply for eviction of the building if the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and if the landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the same and if he satisfies the Court that he has the plan and licence, if any required and the ability to rebuild and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction. Section 11(4)(v) enables the landlord to apply if the tenant ceases to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. Section 11(5) enables the landlord who wants to renovate the building to apply for an order directing the tenant to permit him to enter and carry out the renovation within a time to be fixed by the Court. Section 11(8) enables the landlord to apply for eviction if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use. Sections 11(2) and 11(3) gives various rights and obligations to the tenant as well as to the landlord, so also Section 11(8).

Result 25
Delhi High Court
Permanand Vijay Kumar vs Smt. Savitri Devi & Ors.
Honourable Judges Navin Chawla
Date of Judgment: 4 March 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 10
   
   
   

23. To answer the above, reference may first be had to the provisions of the Act. 24. Section 14(1)(a) of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow: "14. Protection of tenant against eviction. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: 18:43 CM(M) No.15/2021 Page 11 Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:- (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882." (Emphasis supplied) 25. A reading of the above provision would show that the learned Controller, may, on an application made to him by the landlord, make an order for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises where the tenant has "neither paid nor tendered€Ÿ the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, an order of eviction cannot be passed against a tenant where the tenant pays or tenders the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him to the landlord within two months of the receipt of the notice of demand from the landlord. The operative words being "paid nor tendered€Ÿ.

Result 26
Madras High Court
M. Muthu (Died) And Four Others vs Arulmigu Sundareswararswamy ...
Date of Judgment: 12 January 2001
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 16
   
   
   

Rent Control legislations in some other State provide that though a person continuing in possession after the determination of the tenancy also may come within the meaning of tenant, a person against whom an order for eviction was passed will not come within the definition of tenant. But Section 2(6), Kerala Rent Control Act, 1965, defines tenant as including a person continuing in possession after determination of the tenancy in his favour. There is no provision that a tenant will not include one against whom an order for eviction has been made. Therefore it must be held that even after an order for eviction the position of the tenant is the same and the statutory tenancy will continue. The statutory tenancy is not determined by the order for eviction alone. He will be continuing to hold the building under the old terms and conditions. In a case where eviction petition is dismissed there is Section 11(15). In cases where eviction is allowed also the tenancy must be deemed to have continued under the old terms and conditions till the tenant is actually evicted from the holding. Mere acceptance of amounts equivalent to rent by the landlord from such a tenant, who continues in possession as a tenant after the lease has been determined cannot be regarded as evidence of a new agreement of tenancy. As per fiction of law he is entitled to continue in possession on the same terms and conditions and he is bound to pay rent. The landlord is entitled to receive the same. In such a case it will be for the tenant to establish that the payment and receipt were not as statutory tenant, but as legal rent indicating assent. In such a situation the mere payment and acceptance of rent by themselves cannot be taken as evidence of a new lease arrangement. There must be independence evidence of assent on the part of the lessee showing that the landlord has assented. These positions are well established and if at all any authorities are necessary they could be had from the decisions in Kal Khurskroo v. Bal Jerbal, AIR 1939 FC 124; Gooderham & Worts Ltd. v. C.R. Corporation, AIR 1939 PC 90; Ram Beral Singh v. Thirtha Pada Misra, ; Ganga Dutt v. Kartik Chavdra Das, ; Vasu v. Kallianikutty Amma, ; Bhawanji v. Himatlal, and Sardari Lal Vishwa Nath v. Pritam Singh, .

Result 27
Madras High Court
M/S.Primex Healthcare And Research ... vs Mr.A.A.L.Ramaswamy
Honourable Judges R.N.Manjula
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 30
   
   
   

Hence there are possibilities to flout the written tenancy agreement rule, subsequent to its expiry indirectly by way of filing applications for eviction any time under Section 21(2) (a) or under Section 5(1) and 5(3). 54. As a matter of clarity, I would like to add that the law of limitation applicable to suits for recovery possession is entirely on a different footing and it has nothing to do with the applications for eviction filed before the Rent Court. Even for any extraneous reasons if it is presumed that Section 137 of the Limitation Act should be invoked for Applications filed for eviction under Section 21(2) (a), 5(1) and 5(3), there can be a continuing cause of action for the landlord so long as his tenant occupies the premises and so long as the terms landlord and tenant is applicable to both the contractual and statutory tenancies. Since the term €˜tenant€™ is inapplicable only to those persons against whom order / decree for eviction has been passed, the cause of action for the landlord to file an application for eviction shall continue to exist so long as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 the person in occupation of the premises falls under the definition of tenant. In fact the Act does not exclude the applicability of the Act to any type of landlords and tenants, but only to certain type of places and premises. Even while exempting certain premises, liberty is given to the owners of the exempted premises to opt to come under the purview of the Act by expressing the desire to the Rent Authority and avail the fast-track remedies. 55. The danger of depriving the status of tenant for those persons who continue to occupy the premises after the expiry of the agreement and driving the landlord to file a suit for ejectment, is to put the landlord to face the risk of law of limitation for recovery of possession, against his own tenant and also to undergo the time consuming civil court proceedings to the advantage of a defaulted tenant.

Result 28
Karnataka High Court
Institute Of Education And Etc. vs Sri Sowcar A. Siddanna Endowment And Sri ...
Honourable Judges V. Gopala Gowda
Date of Judgment: 5 August 2002
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 20
   
   
   

However, the decree for possession has been passed because the defendant cannot continue to have the benefit of the tenancy as he has lost his status as tenant by denying title of the landlord and setting up title in himself having regard to the provisions contained in Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. The Courts below have not taken into consideration the scope and below have not taken into consideration the scope and effect of the definition of the Word 'tenant' as defined in Section 3(r) of the Act. The word 'tenant' is under Section 3(r) of the Act as follows : "'tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a premises and includes the surviving spouse or any son or daughter or father or mother of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the premises as a member of the tenant's family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but, does not include a person placed in occupation of a premises by its tenant or fees in a public market, cart stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or leased by a local authority." From the aforesaid definition, it is abundantly clear that it also includes a person who continues to be in occupation of the premises even after the termination of his tenancy. The definition, however, does not include a person placed in occupation of a premises by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or leased by a local authority. At this stage, we may point out that by a mere denial of title of the landlord by the tenant of the premises and setting up title in himself even in a case where the tenancy is governed by the Transfer of Property Act only, the tenancy does not automatically stand terminated under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. The landlord must choose this conduct of the tenant and forfeit his tenancy right by giving a notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease. We will deal with this aspect at a later stage of this judgment.

Result 29
Kerala High Court
Paul vs Saleena
Honourable Judges K.S. Radhakrishnan, Pius C. Kuriakose
Date of Judgment: 17 December 2003
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

Rent Control Act does not clearly disable the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act as far as rights of parties are concerned. At the same time, it makes provision for eviction on such specified grounds and it cannot be resisted on the basis of rights conferred under the Transfer of Property Act. When eviction is sought by the landlord under the provisions of the Rent Control Act and once the requirement contemplated under the Rent Control Act are satisfied, tenant cannot claim total prohibition of eviction on the basis of the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act or the provisions contained in the Contract Act. 8. Section 11 of the Act confers certain rights on the landlord to get the tenant evicted on specified grounds. But Section 11(9) gives an assurance to the tenant that he would not be evicted for a specified period if parties so agree so that he could modulate his future course of action accordingly. Grounds of bonafide need for own occupation or his dependent who is a member of his family or requirement of additional accommodation etc. are not available to be raised by the landlord during that specific period. But if the tenant fails to pay rent or without the consent of the landlord sublets the building or transfers his rights or uses the building in such a manner as to reduce its value or utility materially or permanently or ceased to occupy the building, landlord can seek an order of eviction even if a specific period is mentioned in the lease deed and Section 11(9) will not therefore be a bar. There are certain statutory prohibitions, which the tenant is bound to honour unless a contrary intention is spelt out from the agreement. On the guise of specific period mentioned in the agreement the tenant is not expected to sublease the premises unless otherwise agreed to or destroys the utility or value of the tenanted premises materially and permanently or commits default in payment of rent or violates the statutory obligations.

Result 30
Madras High Court
M/S.Primex Healthcare And Research ... vs Mr.A.A.L.Ramaswamy
Honourable Judges R.N.Manjula
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
   
   
   

Since this revolutionary provision starts with a non-obstante clause, it tries to make the oral tenancy obsolete, atleast under the Rent Law Jurisprudence. Since the substantive law like Transfer of Property Act still recognizes oral lease for a period below one year and the Central Law has the advantage of prevailing over the State law in case of repugnancy, it is reliably learnt that this provision is said to be under challenge in a Writ Petition. As per Section 21(1), no tenant shall be evicted during the continuation of the tenancy agreement. It https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 is due the binding nature of contract rental agreement and and the inviolability of the contracts. However, Section 21(2) would prescribe the grounds under which the tenant can be evicted during the continuation of the contractual tenancy, except Section 21(1)(a). 26. If both the parties to a tenancy agreement agree to have a tenancy agreement for any specific period they should get it written. If the landlord fails to come forward to enter into a written agreement, the tenant can terminate the tenancy and vacate the premises any time before the expiry of the agreed period of tenancy and the landlord cannot claim damages for such termination done at the instance of the tenant. If the tenant does not come forward to execute a written agreement, then the landlord can evict the tenant in accordance with Section 21(2)(a). Since the failure to execute the written tenancy agreement itself a ground for eviction, the Rent Court cannot expect the landlord to produce a written and registered tenancy agreement at the time of filing an Application for eviction. It is to be noted that no time limit is prescribed either under the Act for filing a petition for eviction by the landlord on the ground of absence of written tenancy agreement (Section 21(2)(a)). https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 27. To examine of Section 5 is very much essential to understand the impact of rent law on holding over.


Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is intended for informational purposes only and is designed to assist legal professionals, law students, and other professionals such as Chartered Accountants (CA), Company Secretaries (CS), and Cost and Management Accountants (CMA). Patodia Infotech Private Limited utilizes artificial intelligence (AI) to generate information based on various laws, acts of India, and judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Tribunals of India. However, we do not make any guarantees regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information provided.

Legal professionals are advised to independently verify the information and conduct their own research to validate its applicability to specific cases or situations. The contents of this website do not constitute legal advice, and reliance on them should be at the discretion and risk of the individual legal professional.

Patodia Infotech Private Limited hereby disclaims all representations and warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the contents. We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of or reliance on the information provided on this website.

By accessing and using this website, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Patodia Infotech Private Limited and its affiliates from any claims, damages, losses, or liabilities arising from your use of or reliance on the information presented herein.

Information

  • Patodia Infotech Private Limited (CIN: U52609KA2017PTC103319) 15th Main, 17th Cross J P Nagar, 5th Phase Bangalore 560 078 Karnataka, India

  • +91 806 840 2226

Menu

Quick Links

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Sign up to VakilAI’s monthly newsletter to get the latest updates.

We don’t send you any spam emails

Copyright © VakilAI | All Right Reserved


Copyright © 2021-2025 Patodia Infotech Private Limited, All Rights Reserved.