Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for arpatchand A. Bhandari VS Shantilal Moolshankar Jani...
Checking relevance for Narpatchand A. Bhandari VS Shantilal Moolshankar Jani...
Checking relevance for M. C. D. VS Shashnak Steel Industries (P) Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Government Servant Co-operative House Building Society LTD. VS Union Of India...
Checking relevance for S. B. ABDUL AZEEZ VS M. MANIYAPPA SETTY...
1988 0 Supreme(SC) 660 : Under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, a manager does not fall within the definition of ''''landlord'''' for the purposes of Section 21(1)(h). The definition of ''''landlord'''' in Section 3(h) includes any person receiving or entitled to receive rent, but the Explanation to Section 21(4) explicitly excludes ''''Rent Collector or Estate Manager'''' from being considered a ''''landlord'''' for the purpose of eviction under Section 21(1)(h). Therefore, a manager, even if acting in a representative capacity, is not deemed a landlord under the Act for the purpose of seeking eviction on grounds of bona fide requirement.Checking relevance for S. B. Abdul Azeez VS M. Maniyappa Setty...
1988 0 Supreme(SC) 658 : A mortgagee with possession is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, for bona fide requirement of the premises for their own use. The court held that such a mortgagee falls within the definition of ''''landlord'''' under Section 3(h) of the Act, as they are entitled to receive rent on their own account and have possession of the property. The Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in R. Vijendra v. H. R. & A. C. (1988) affirmed that a usufructuary mortgagee, by virtue of taking possession and receiving rent, steps into the shoes of the owner and acquires the status of a landlord for the purposes of eviction under Section 21(1)(h). Therefore, a mortgagee with possession is considered a landlord under the Rent Control Act for the purpose of seeking eviction based on bona fide personal need.Checking relevance for SAIYADNA M. BURHANUDDIN SAHEB VS TARABEN MOHAMMED SHAFI IBRAHIMHAKIM HEIRS OF S. I. HAKIM...
2006 0 Supreme(Guj) 55 : Under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the term ''''landlord'''' includes any person who is for the time being either receiving or entitled to receive the rent. This definition extends to an Estate Manager appointed by the sole trustee, who can be delegated the power to file and prosecute a suit for possession. Therefore, an Estate Manager falls within the definition of ''''landlord'''' for the purposes of the Act, provided they are entitled to or receiving rent.Checking relevance for R. D. Sales Corporation VS Anoop Singh Gill...
Checking relevance for Shyam Advani VS Ramesh Kumar Panjwani...
Checking relevance for S. G. Bajpai VS Chimanlal B. Kansara since deceased by his legal representatives & another...
Checking relevance for T. Mallikarjunarao VS A. Radhakrishna Murthy...
1988 0 Supreme(AP) 11 : A manager does not fall within the definition of ''''landlord'''' under the Rent Control Act if they are merely receiving rent as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, or guardian for the benefit of another person. The definition of ''''landlord'''' under Section 2(iv) of the Act includes a person who is receiving rent on behalf of another, but such a person is not considered a ''''landlord'''' for the purpose of eviction proceedings under Section 10(3) unless they are the actual owner of the property. In particular, a person acting solely as an agent for collecting rent without ownership interest cannot initiate eviction proceedings without the prior written permission of the actual owner. Therefore, a manager who collects rent only in a representative capacity is not entitled to maintain an eviction petition under the Rent Control Act.Checking relevance for Raghavarapu Anjaneyulu VS Rebba Venkata Ramanamma...
1998 0 Supreme(AP) 127 : Under Section 2(vi) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the term ''''landlord'''' includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another, including a co-owner. The document explicitly holds that a co-owner, such as the second respondent in this case, is entitled to collect rents and fits into the definition of ''''landlord''''. This applies even if the co-owner is not the sole owner, as jurisprudence establishes that a co-owner is still an owner of the property and thus qualifies as a landlord under the Act. Therefore, a manager does not fall within the definition of ''''landlord'''' unless he is acting on behalf of an owner (e.g., as agent, trustee, executor, etc.), but a mere manager without such authority or ownership interest is not considered a landlord under the Act.
