Thursday, 26 September 2019

Questions and answers on rent law

1) What is difference between S 15(2) and S 15 (3) of Maharashtra rent control act?
Ans -1) As per S 15(2) No eviction suit is to be filed against tenant unless Demand notice is issued to him prior to filing of eviction suit  demanding arrears of rent. As per S 15 (3) no eviction decree should be passed by court if tenant deposits arrears of rent, interest,permitted increase and costs of suit within 90 days from date of receipt of summons and thereafter continue to deposit rent and permitted increases till disposal of suit.
2) S 15(2) is applicable at pre trial stage and S 15(3) is applicable after filing of eviction suit.

Read important judgments on rent law: 
Click here


2) How to decide issue of comparative hardship?

Ans:-Issue of comparative hardship can be decided  after careful consideration of all the relevant factors in weighing the relative hardship which is likely to be caused to the tenant with the likely advantage of the landlord on the basis of the available material on record. Each party must adduce evidence to show what hardship would be caused to him by the granting or refusal of the decree and it will be for the court to determine whether the suffering of the tenant, in case a decree was made, would be more than that of the landlord by its refusal.Court will have to compare hardship which will be caused landlord or tenant if eviction decree is granted or refused.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


Civil Appeal No. 2481 of 1978

Decided On: 06.10.1978

Mst. Bega Begum  Vs. Abdul Ahad Khan (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors.


Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.N. Singhal and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.



Citation: AIR 1979 SC 272
Read full judgment here: Click here

3) Whether court should consider subsequent event in favour of landlord to grant him eviction decree on ground of bonafide need?


 We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the bonafides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bonafides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow process system subsists.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 799 of 2016

Decided On: 08.03.2018

 Gurudas Yeshwant Pednekar Vs. Sharada and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Nutan D. Sardessai, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 605
Read full judgment here: Click here


4) Leading judgment on eviction of tenant on ground of bonafide need of landlord


 Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of tenant, it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of landlord for his own occupation of use of the tenanted accommodation which treats the landlord with some sympathy. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta MANU/SC/0432/1999 : [1999]3SCR1260 this Court had held that a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere, honest desire in contra-distinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question be asked by a judge of facts, by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether of in the given facts proved by material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest? If the answer be in the positive the need is bona fide. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. An approach either too liberator too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against If the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his. own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself and dwell into lesser premises os as to protect the tenant's continued occupation in tenancy premises. In Deena Nath vs. Pooran Lal- MANU/SC/1678/2001 : [2001]3SCR925 this Court has held that bona fide requirement has to be distinguished form a mere whim or fanciful desire. The bona fide requirement is in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need so as to convince the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (civil) 7292 of 2001

Decided On: 18.10.2001

 Siddalingamma vs.   Mamtha Shenoy

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J., R.C. Lahoti and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.


Citation:(2001) 8 SCC561
Read full judgment here: Click here

5) Whether appellate court can examine legality of finding recorded against a party in absence of cross objection?

 This question, i.e., first part of issue No. 4 was decided by the Trial Court in Plaintiff's favour wherein it was held that Defendant No. 1 was the Plaintiff's tenant. So far as second part of issue No. 4 is concerned, it was in relation to the question as to whether Defendant No. 1 was a defaulter in payment of rent to the Plaintiff. This question was answered by the Trial Court against the Plaintiff and in Defendant No. 1's favour wherein it was held that Defendant No. 1 did not commit any default in payment of rent to the Plaintiff. It is for this reason, the suit was dismissed.

17. The Plaintiff in his first appeal did not challenge the finding of the Trial Court recorded on the first part of issue No. 4 and rightly so because it was already answered by the Trial Court in his favour. The First Appellate Court, therefore, could not examine the legality and correctness of this finding in Plaintiff's appeal unless it was challenged by the Defendants by filing cross objection Under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code in the appeal.

18. As mentioned above, the Defendants though suffered the adverse finding on first part of issue No. 4 but did not file any cross objection questioning its legality. In the light of these admitted facts arising in the case, the First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to examine the legality and correctness of the finding on first part of issue No. 4 in Plaintiff's appeal and reverse it against the Plaintiff.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9956 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15192 of 2014)

Decided On: 25.09.2018

 Biswajit Sukul  Vs.  Deo Chand Sarda and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Abhay Manohar Sapre and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Citation:(2018) 10 SCC 584,(2018) 10 SCC 584
Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment