Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Anil Joginder Sachdev – Appellant
Versus
Balasaheb Hiralal Zad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of tenancy and lease. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the eviction suit and lower court decrees. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments on default in payment of rent. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. legal principles regarding validity of amendments. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. arguments against evidence of damage and structure adjustments. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. importance of amendments in ongoing actions. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. court’s decision on grounds of default. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. doctrine of relation back in amendments. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. consequences of failure to meet legal requirements. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. court’s evaluation of evidence for damages. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 11. determining removal of alterations affecting tenancy. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 12. distinction between removable and permanent structures. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 13. limitation issues and statutory provisions. (Para 66 , 67) |
| 14. final judgment and orders related to eviction. (Para 68 , 69 , 70) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1. Applicants-tenants have invoked revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) c
A landlord cannot seek eviction on arrears of rent if the statutory notice has not followed the deadline provision while unauthorized constructions can justify eviction if they are proven to cause de....
Permanent alterations made by a tenant without landlord consent constitute grounds for eviction under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Important Point : The court upheld the eviction decree based on unlawful subletting and unauthorized structural alterations, interpreting lease provisions to restrict successive subletting without la....
Alterations made without permission by a tenant constitute grounds for eviction under sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, invalidating contrary findings of the appellate court.
Unauthorized alterations became permanent constructions without landlord consent, justifying eviction under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
The judgment establishes that the erection of permanent structures by a tenant without the landlord's consent, in violation of Section 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, can lead to ....
Tenant's unauthorized construction on adjoining land caused nuisance, justifying eviction under tenant protection laws, while landlord retains rights as adjoining occupier despite not residing nearby....
Eviction under Rent Act requires definitive evidence of permanent structures, including their nature and impact, which was insufficiently established in this case.
Revisional jurisdiction permits interference with perverse appellate findings ignoring tenant's admissions of unauthorized substantial alterations, spouse's suitable residence acquisition, and subjec....
Tenants must not make permanent alterations without consent; violations justify eviction under tenancy laws.
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
