Topic

Rent Control Law

4 articlesLatest 5 days ago
Rent Controller alone decides validity of rent-increase notice under Sections 6A & 8 DRC Act; civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain eviction : Delhi HC
Case Law Analysis
|Delhi High Court

Rent Controller alone decides validity of rent-increase notice under Sections 6A & 8 DRC Act; civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain eviction : Delhi HC

A Delhi High Court set aside an eviction decree, ruling that only the Rent Controller can determine whether a rent-increase notice under Sections 6A and 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was validly served. Consequently, civil courts cannot adjudicate rent-increase disputes until that determination, impacting landlords and tenants across Delhi.

Section 11(3) Kerala Rent Control Act | 'Bona Fide Need' Eviction Requires Tangible Evidence, Not Mere Oral Testimony: Kerala HC
Case Law Analysis
|Kerala High Court

Section 11(3) Kerala Rent Control Act | 'Bona Fide Need' Eviction Requires Tangible Evidence, Not Mere Oral Testimony: Kerala HC

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.

Section 16(1)(m) Maharashtra Rent Control Act | Non-Use of Shop for 3 Years + Photographic Evidence Justifies Eviction Even Without Tenant’s Defense : Bombay HC
Case Law Analysis
|Bombay High Court

Section 16(1)(m) Maharashtra Rent Control Act | Non-Use of Shop for 3 Years + Photographic Evidence Justifies Eviction Even Without Tenant’s Defense : Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court upheld eviction of a tenant who left a commercial shop unused for over three years, accepting landlord-submitted photographs as conclusive proof of non-use. The ruling reinforces that tenant silence and failure to contest evidence in ex-parte proceedings do not shield against eviction under Section 16(1)(m), setting a clear precedent for landlords seeking recovery of abandoned commercial premises.