#rent control

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an ejectment petition filed under the repealed East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is not maintainable for a tenancy that commenced after the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 came into force on 30 November 2013. Consequently, an NRI landlord cannot rely on the 1949 Act to claim bona fide personal requirement and must seek relief under Section 24(3) of the 1995 Act, which applies only to tenancies predating that date.

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.

Supreme Court reaffirms limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, setting aside Punjab and Haryana High Court's interference with concurrent findings in a landlord-tenant dispute under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The ruling clarifies the threshold for eviction on bona fide grounds, impacting landlords and tenants in rent-controlled jurisdictions.

The Kerala High Court granted a 23-year tenant nine months to vacate premises, overriding the landlord's established reasonable requirement by prioritizing equitable relief and practical hardship. This sets a critical precedent that statutory rights to possession must be balanced with human dignity and livelihood concerns, especially for long-term tenants with no immediate alternatives.

Bombay High Court rules that mesne profits payable by government entities must be determined based on comparable market data rather than standard commercial rates, ensuring equitable valuation. The judgment underscores that state-owned undertakings are entitled to moderated rates, reflecting their non-commercial status and public function.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a Bar Association strike does not justify denying a party's right to cross-examine witnesses in eviction proceedings under the Haryana Rent Act. The court emphasized that judicial proceedings cannot be stalled by unlawful professional abstentions, reinforcing the mandatory nature of procedural fairness in civil disputes.

Allahabad High Court rules that tenants seeking protection under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 must substantiate pre-1985 construction with documentary proof, not mere assertions. The judgment reinforces the burden of proof on tenants in rent control disputes, impacting eviction proceedings across Uttar Pradesh.

Allahabad HC rules that substitution of legal heirs in rent proceedings is valid if done in good faith, even if the deceased party was initially named erroneously. The court emphasizes that procedural defects yield to substantive justice, ensuring proceedings remain valid as long as no prejudice is shown to the opposing party.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that mere ownership of property is insufficient to establish jurisdiction in eviction suits under rent control laws; without evidence of a rent payment history or a formal tenancy agreement, the Small Causes Court lacks authority to adjudicate. This clarifies a critical jurisdictional barrier for landlords and protects long-term occupants from baseless eviction claims grounded solely in title.

The Bombay High Court ruled that landlords need not produce sanctioned plans to evict tenants for unauthorized permanent alterations-admissions during cross-examination and photographic proof are sufficient to establish breach of tenancy terms. This clarifies the evidentiary standard for eviction cases under rent control laws, empowering landlords to act decisively against structural violations without costly documentation.

The Supreme Court ruled that government occupation of premises under a perpetual lease deed falls exclusively under the Government Grants Act, 1895, exempting it from eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This establishes statutory immunity for sovereign grants, impacting property disputes involving government lessees.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that when a co-landlord dies, the surviving landlord’s bonafide necessity for the premises remains valid if actively asserted, and subletting is established not by documentary tenancy but by exclusive, unchallenged possession by a third party not named in the rent note. This clarifies evidentiary standards for eviction cases under rent control laws, impacting landlords and tenants alike in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh.

The Madras High Court has ruled that municipal corporations must enforce the Supreme Court’s Rs.140 per square foot rent cap on leased commercial shops, ordering refunds of all excess payments collected since January 2022. This sets a binding precedent for all civic bodies across Tamil Nadu, ensuring uniformity in lease rentals and protecting small traders from arbitrary municipal demands.

The Supreme Court ruled that when a tenant vacates premises and third parties not party to the lease take exclusive possession, it constitutes unlawful subletting under the Karnataka Rent Act, regardless of partnership deeds. This clarifies that mere business association does not equate to tenancy, empowering landlords to act against covert subletting without direct contractual evidence.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Rent Authorities lack jurisdiction to set aside eviction orders already affirmed by multiple courts, including the High Court and this Court. This reinforces the principle that administrative tribunals cannot circumvent final judicial decisions, curbing procedural abuse and upholding the hierarchy of courts in civil disputes.