Back
S. ABDUL NAZEER, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Mohammed Sadiq – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Manglani – Respondent
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh allowing the revision petition filed by the tenant under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act') and the setting aside an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord is before us in the above Appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
4. The appellant-landlord sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on two grounds namely: (1) wilful default in payment of rent; (2) bona fide requirement of the premises for the own use of the landlord.
5. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and ordered eviction. In a revision filed by the tenant under Section 22 of the Act, the High Court has set aside the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority, forcing the landlord to come up with the above Appeal.
6. Insofar as the first ground on which the eviction was sought is concerned, there was a dispute as to what the agreed monthly rent wa
The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence in landlord-tenant disputes and clarified that pursuing higher studies does not negate the bona fide requirement for own use.
Failure to follow prescribed rent payment procedure constitutes wilful default under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
Point of Law : Law is well settled that in absence of any evidence regarding payment of rents or that procedure as laid down under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act....
The landlord is entitled to evict the tenant for willful default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement.
The court affirmed a landlord's bona fide need for eviction under the Kerala Rent Control Act, reinforcing the limited scope of revision petitions.
The court affirms the necessity of considering tenants' eviction based on landlords' bona fide needs, emphasizing the limited grounds for revision in such cases.
The tenant's failure to prove timely payment of rent upheld an eviction order based on landlord's bona fide need.
The landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction under the Act is valid, and the tenant's claims of alternative premises do not negate this requirement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
