Back
SANDEEP K. SHINDE
Navelkar Hotels – Appellant
Versus
Anand B. Shirvoikar Alias Anand – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives notice.
4. Petitioners/landlords seek tenant's eviction on the ground of default in paying the rent. Rent controller vide judgment and order dated 29.9.2016 granted eviction decree. In Rent Appeal no. 13/2016 the appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 8.7.2020 reversed the eviction decree. Thus this petition.
5. By the Deed of Sale dated 19.8.2013, landlord purchased the property more particularly described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the eviction application, from his predecessor in title, Mr. Ramesh Agxikar and Sumitra Agxikar. The respondent is the tenant in the part of the building existing in the said property (hereafter called as suit premises). In terms of deed of sale, Mr and Mrs. Agxikar covenanted that the respondent shall attorn tenancy to the applicant with effect from the date of execution of deed and petitioners shall be entitled to recover the arrears of rent due and payable by the respondent. By letter dated 11.10.2003, petitioners formally informed the respondent(tenant) about the purchase of the s
A tenant must adjust overpayments within six months to avoid eviction for non-payment of rent; failure to do so constitutes neglect under the Bombay Rent Act.
The grounds available for the landlord prior to the relationship covered under the Act are still available if not repugnant to the Act.
When Section 8(1) of the Act is not in Statute book, as it was declared ultra vires, a tenant is entitled to contend that the landlord is not entitled to retain the advance in excess of one month's r....
When once eviction petition had been filed, there is no question of landlord losing his right to pursue the same notwithstanding the fact whether the tenant had deposited or was willing to deposit th....
The tenant's application under Section 22(4) of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 provided a substantial defense against eviction, and the tenant could establish the defens....
High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jur....
Even assuming that for purpose of execution an order under Section 12(3) of Act can be equated with and treated as same, as one under Section 11 of Act, the consequence enjoined by an order under Sec....
The court established that consistent non-payment of rent during proceedings justifies eviction under the UP Rent Act.
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
