#eviction proceedings

Landlords cannot rely on a claimed bonafide requirement for eviction if the need is not genuine or if they later secure alternative premises or move abroad. The Delhi High Court set aside dismissal orders in three eviction cases, ruling that such subsequent events defeat the Section 25-B(8) defence. Tenants in similar disputes gain protection.

Bombay High Court holds that delays in filing appeals due to illness or lack of knowledge of impugned orders must be condoned under slum rehabilitation laws, ensuring petitioners are not denied statutory remedies. The ruling directs authorities to reconsider eligibility afresh, setting aside eviction proceedings until merits are adjudicated.

Kerala High Court sets aside eviction orders under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, ruling that landlords must substantiate 'bona fide need' with concrete evidence-documents, witness corroboration, or material proof-beyond oral assertions. The decision reinforces the burden of proof in eviction proceedings, impacting landlords and tenants across Kerala.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that proceedings cannot be withdrawn under repealed provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act merely to invoke amended provisions, unless no vested rights are affected. The Court also affirmed the authority of a Founder Family Member to issue eviction notices for exempted institutions, reinforcing statutory compliance in religious endowment disputes.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that eviction under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act requires prior Section 39 proceedings, invalidating penal action without procedural compliance. This sets a precedent protecting occupants from arbitrary eviction and underscores the mandatory nature of welfare-oriented procedural safeguards.

Bombay High Court rules that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 prevails over Rent Control legislation, stripping civil courts of jurisdiction over tenancy disputes in public premises-even for tenancies predating the Act. The ruling mandates eviction proceedings under the 1971 Act, impacting tenants and public sector landlords across Maharashtra.

The Kerala High Court ruled that a municipality cannot evict a fish merchant who has operated on the same site for over 50 years and paid regular rent, even under Section 411 for structural danger, without providing a meaningful opportunity to be heard. This reinforces that natural justice applies to all state actions affecting livelihoods, regardless of emergency claims.

Bombay High Court sets aside an eviction order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, ruling that procedural lapses-such as non-compliance with prescribed formats-render such orders legally unsustainable. The judgment reinforces that senior citizens' eviction proceedings must adhere to strict due process to avoid prejudice.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that even decades of occupation over municipal land does not create a legal claim if no valid title, tenancy agreement, or court order exists. This sets a critical precedent for municipal authorities and informal occupants alike, reinforcing that public property cannot be privatized through mere possession, regardless of duration or payment history.

Meghalaya High Court holds that a revision petition under Section 115 CPC can challenge an order rejecting a review application, even if the underlying decree remains unchallenged. This ruling clarifies the limited but crucial scope of revisional jurisdiction, offering tenants and litigants an additional remedy in eviction and property disputes without reopening the final decree.

Andhra Pradesh High Court quashes an eviction notice issued under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, for predating the notice to deny the petitioner's statutory appeal period. The ruling reinforces that procedural fairness is mandatory in government eviction proceedings, impacting landowners facing abrupt dispossession.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that municipal corporations must adhere to principles of natural justice, including issuing show-cause notices and conducting hearings, before evicting alleged encroachers. The Court directed the Kakinada Municipal Corporation to consider evidence of title and possession, reinforcing that procedural fairness is mandatory under the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that under the proviso to Section 29 of the Endowments Act, a Managing Trustee of a religious institution with annual income below Rs. 2 lakhs can legally act as an Executive Officer, even without formal appointment. This holding validates eviction proceedings initiated by the trustee, reinforcing the statutory flexibility for smaller trusts.

The Bombay High Court struck down an appellate order that reversed eviction and compensation under the Public Premises Act, holding that unauthorised subletting without consent voids tenancy and appellate courts cannot introduce new evidence not presented before the Estate Officer. This reinforces the strict procedural boundaries in public property eviction cases, affecting statutory tenants and sub-lessees nationwide.

Allahabad High Court holds that once an appeal under Section 22 of UP Act 13 of 1972 is admitted, dispossession cannot proceed until the appeal is decided. The ruling protects appellants from irreversible civil consequences, aligning with the Supreme Court's Mool Chand Yadav precedent, ensuring possession remains intact during appellate proceedings.