Topic

Tenancy Dispute

6 articlesLatest July 2026
Revisional Authority Cannot Decide Merits After Setting Aside Remand Order | Bombay Tenancy Act, Section 29 : Bombay HC
|Bombay High Court

Revisional Authority Cannot Decide Merits After Setting Aside Remand Order | Bombay Tenancy Act, Section 29 : Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal overstepped its revisional powers by directly deciding the merits of a tenancy dispute after quashing a remand order. This reinforces the statutory hierarchy: revisional forums must preserve the appellate stage and cannot substitute themselves as fact-finders, safeguarding litigants' right to a full hearing before the next level of adjudication.

Tenancy Area Determined by Rent Paid and Plaintiff's Admission, Not Speculative Structural Inference | Bombay HC
Case Law Analysis
|Bombay High Court

Tenancy Area Determined by Rent Paid and Plaintiff's Admission, Not Speculative Structural Inference | Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court ruled that the extent of let-out premises in a tenancy dispute must be fixed by the rent paid and the landlord's own admission in pleadings, rejecting the trial court's unsupported calculation based on unverified truss assumptions. This sets a critical precedent for landlords and tenants: documentary evidence of rent and self-serving statements carry more weight than conjectural architectural interpretations in property disputes.

Section 17(2) WB Premises Tenancy Act | Res Judicata Bars Maintainability of Licensee Eviction Application After Prior Decree : Calcutta HC
Case Law Analysis
|Calcutta High Court

Section 17(2) WB Premises Tenancy Act | Res Judicata Bars Maintainability of Licensee Eviction Application After Prior Decree : Calcutta HC

Calcutta High Court rules that once a prior decree conclusively establishes the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship, subsequent applications under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for licensee eviction are barred by res judicata. The ruling reinforces finality in property disputes and restricts repetitive litigation over settled legal relationships.

False Settlement Statements in Court | Rs. 50,000 Cost Imposed for Misrepresentation of Tenancy Terms : Bombay HC
Case Law Analysis
|Bombay High Court

False Settlement Statements in Court | Rs. 50,000 Cost Imposed for Misrepresentation of Tenancy Terms : Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court imposed a Rs. 50,000 cost on a respondent for falsely representing in court that it would regularize tenancy under agreed terms, only to later submit a completely different leave and license agreement. This ruling reinforces that judicial trust cannot be weaponized through strategic misrepresentation, and sets a clear deterrent for parties attempting to manipulate settlement outcomes in civil proceedings.