Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Gauri Shanker: Suresh Gupta: Rajat Roy VS Union Of India: Rajdevsingh: Sobha Singh Private LTD. ...
1994 0 Supreme(SC) 880 : Yes, a civil suit for possession after termination of a residential tenancy is permissible under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The court held that the tenancy was terminated by a valid notice dated 28-7-1969, which expired on 3-9-1969, and the landlord was entitled to file a suit for possession. The trial court decreed the suit on 11-2-1974, ruling that the statutory tenancy was not heritable, thereby allowing the landlord to recover possession. This confirms that once a tenancy is lawfully terminated, a civil suit for possession of residential premises is a valid and permissible legal remedy.Checking relevance for Gian Devi Anand VS Jeevan Kumars...
Checking relevance for Ballu Ram Alias Bal Sarup VS Mandir Tuhi Ram Harnam Dass...
Checking relevance for Resident’s Welfare Association VS Union Territory Of Chandigarh...
Checking relevance for DHARAM BIR SINGH VS MANSI SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Vishnu Narayan Gadskari VS Paralal Baladev Uza...
Checking relevance for Mafatlal Industries Ltd Thro Ankit Girishkumar Patel VS Naranbhai Dahyabhai Raval Legal Heirs Of Decd. Dahyabhai Somabhai Raval...
2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 2053 : The legal documents confirm that a civil suit for possession of residential property after termination of employment is permissible. The Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court have consistently held that criminal prosecution under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, cannot be stayed or halted merely because a bona fide civil dispute regarding tenancy has been raised. Even if the employee or their heir has filed a civil suit on the grounds of tenancy, criminal proceedings under Section 630 remain maintainable. The law specifically allows prosecution of past employees and their heirs for wrongful possession of company property after the termination of employment. The purpose of Section 630 is to provide a speedy and effective summary mechanism for eviction and retrieval of company property. The protection under the Bombay Rent Act does not override the special provisions of Section 630, which are designed to suppress the mischief of wrongful occupation and advance the remedy. Therefore, an employee or their heir may be prosecuted under Section 630 even if they have initiated or are pursuing a civil suit for tenancy rights.Checking relevance for Bhim Raj Katara S/o Ram Lal Katara VS State Of Rajasthan...
Checking relevance for Harpreet Singh vs Vimal Kumar Pathak...
Checking relevance for Rudra Collection VS Swapan Kumar Dey...
Checking relevance for Molina Dey VS Gargi Dey...
2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 560 : Under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, legal heirs of a deceased tenant (such as spouse, son, daughter, parent, or widow of a predeceased son) are entitled to continue in possession of a residential premises for a period not exceeding five years from the date of the tenant''''s death, provided they were ordinarily living with the tenant, dependent on them, and do not own or occupy any other residential premises. After this five-year period, they lose their right to possession and become illegal occupants. Therefore, a civil suit for eviction after the termination of such tenancy is permissible, as demonstrated by the court''''s order directing the defendants to vacate the property and pay mesne profits after the five-year period expired on 01.06.2020.Checking relevance for SBTS Devi VS State of Andhra Pradesh...
Checking relevance for Parwati Bai VS Radhika...
Checking relevance for K. Raheja Development Corporation VS State of Karnataka...
Checking relevance for Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary VS Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar...
Checking relevance for Corporation of Calicut VS Sreenivasan...
Checking relevance for Abdul Rahim VS Md. Azimuddin...
Checking relevance for CLASSIC MOTORS LIMITED VS MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED...
Checking relevance for Chander Kali Bai VS Jagdish Singh Thakur...
Checking relevance for RAMESH P. SETH VS M. S. KRISHNA MURTHY...
Checking relevance for VIJAY KUMAR KHAMBATE VS VINAY KUMAR AGGARWAL...
2006 0 Supreme(Del) 1012 : Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, if a tenant dies during the pendency of eviction proceedings, the landlord is not required to file a regular civil suit to recover possession. The legal representative of the deceased tenant, who is entitled to the benefit of the tenancy only for one year and was not financially dependent on the tenant, can be proceeded against in the same eviction proceedings. The eviction petition remains maintainable against the legal representative, who holds the property as an heir to the estate, not as a trespasser. A decree for eviction can be passed against such a representative without the need for a fresh civil suit, as the right to sue survives the tenant''''s death and the proceedings continue against the legal representative.Checking relevance for HARI CHAND VS SWARAN LAL...
Checking relevance for BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. , MIRZAPUR VS . PARVATI DEVI...
1997 0 Supreme(All) 1336 : A suit for eviction of a lessee from a building after the termination of the lease, and for the recovery of possession and compensation, is permissible and cognizable by the court of small causes. This is specifically provided under Article 4A of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, as amended in U.P., which includes such suits within the jurisdiction of the court of small causes. However, the suit must be for eviction from a building (defined as a residential or non-residential roofed structure, including appurtenant land, garages, out-houses, and fixtures) after lease termination. The present case involves open land, not a building with appurtenant land, and thus does not fall under this category. Therefore, a civil suit for eviction from open land after lease termination is not permissible in the court of small causes and must be filed in the civil court.