TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order for Rent Arrears. Know Your Rights!</h1> <h3>JAYWANT S. KULKARNI Versus MINOCHAR DOSABHAI SHROFF</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order against the tenant due to arrears of rent and failure to dispute standard rent within the specified period. ... - Issues:1. Eviction order based on arrears of rent.2. Interpretation of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.3. Dispute regarding standard rent and eviction decree.4. Tenant's claim of landlord's mala fide conduct and non-issuance of receipts.5. Application of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act in depositing rent.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment involves an appeal by the tenant against an eviction order based on arrears of rent, initially passed by the Civil Judge and confirmed by the Assistant Judge of Thane. The High Court dismissed the tenant's application challenging the decision, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.2. The interpretation of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is crucial in this case. The section outlines the conditions under which a landlord can recover possession of premises, including the tenant's obligation to pay standard rent and permitted increases. Non-payment of rent within the statutory period can lead to a decree for eviction, as highlighted in the judgment.3. The dispute regarding standard rent and its timely resolution is significant in determining eviction decrees. The judgment refers to a previous case where the tenant's failure to dispute standard rent within the specified period resulted in an eviction order. The courts below in the present case upheld the eviction based on similar grounds.4. The tenant raised allegations of the landlord's mala fide conduct, claiming non-issuance of receipts and demanding compensation instead of rent. The tenant argued that the landlord's actions hindered rent payment and fulfillment of obligations. However, the courts found no merit in these claims, upholding the eviction order based on the tenant's failure to pay arrears.5. The application of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act, which deals with the deposit of rent by the tenant, was discussed in the context of ensuring protection from eviction. The judgment cited a previous case emphasizing that strict punctuality in rent deposits may not be necessary for availing protection from eviction, provided the payments are made regularly.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction order based on arrears of rent and the tenant's failure to dispute standard rent within the specified period. The judgment highlighted the mandatory nature of passing a decree for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act, emphasizing adherence to the letter of the law. The court granted the tenant six months to vacate the premises, subject to certain conditions to alleviate hardship.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
