Tweet Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner, a senior citizen, challenging order dated 28-06-2021 passed by the Appellate Authority/Divisional Commissioner rejecting an appeal filed by the Petitioner herein under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, which had been filed against an Order dated 04-04-2019 passed by the District Magistrate rejecting an application filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. Subramonium Prasad, J., allowed the petition, set aside the order and further directe ..read more

Tweet Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution to set aside the impugned judgment dated 16-03-2023, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (‘the Appellant Rent Tribunal’), Dr. Nupur Bhati, J.* opined that the bona fide necessity of the respondent- landlord was to be decided by herself and even if, the alternate premises were available, then also it was for the landlord to choose a more suitable premise for carrying on the business by herself and the petitioner-tenant could not dictate as to from which premise she should start the bus ..read more

Tweet Calcutta High Court: While deciding a second appeal challenging district judge’s order holding that the agreement for accommodation is an agreement for tenancy and not a licence agreement, a single-judge bench comprising of Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,* J., rejected the appellant’s claim of tenancy due to insufficient evidence and lack of rent receipts. Factual Matrix In the instant matter, the plaintiff-respondents initiated an eviction suit, claiming ownership of a property bequeathed to them. The defendant, an acquaintance, sought temporary accommodation in the property in April 1987, payin ..read more

Tweet Supreme Court: In a special leave petition challenging the Division bench judgment and order passed by Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court overturned a Single Judge judgment, and molded the relief on the issue of mesne profits while relegating the matter to the Civil Court (alternative remedy), the division bench of J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. issued notice to the oil companies and directed them to file a counter affidavit within 6 weeks and directed the petitioners to file the rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. The issue was whether writ proceedings are maintainabl ..read more

Tweet Calcutta High Court: While dismissing the application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging a judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Alipore, a dingle-judge bench comprising of Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,* J., found no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the lower court order’s to condone the delay and set aside the order of abatement. The Court emphasized that the rules of limitation were not meant to destroy the rights of parties and that the word “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a l ..read more

Tweet Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by the son (‘petitioner’) against the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur (‘DM’), wherein, while exercising powers under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (‘Act, 2007’) the DM directed the petitioner to evict his father’s house, Shree Prakash Singh, J. has said that as the petitioner is living in one room with his wife and he is not making any hindrance in the peaceful living of the parents, in other part of the house and therefore, the objective of the Act, 2007 is no ..read more

Tweet Calcutta High Court: While deciding a second appeal against an eviction decree based on the violation of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as well as the ground of reasonable requirement, a single-judge bench comprising of Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,* J., held that the alleged construction is indeed outside the tenancy and remanded the case back to First Appellate Court to consider the plaintiff’s reasonable requirement in light of a subsequent property purchase. Factual Matrix In the instant matter, the original plaintiff-respondent, initiated an Ejectment Suit against the p ..read more

Tweet Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner (son) under Article 226 challenging an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD affirming the order of eviction passed by District Magistrate in an eviction matter filed by the father. Subramonium Prasad, J., held that no fault can be found with the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority in entertaining the petition and passing the Order of eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 read with the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, as amended fr ..read more

Tweet Supreme Court: In the case where a tenant had been occupying a premises for over 38 years, and the landlord sought to evict him on the ground that the suit had been defectively instituted within five years of the tenancy as per Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ has held that the objective of Section 14(3) of the Act, being the safeguarding of the tenant for five years, was subserved by the proceedings going on for the requisite period of time and beyond it within which the tenant ..read more

Tweet Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by Ritu Chernalia (petitioner) challenging the impugned order dated 31-03-2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi wherein the eviction order was set aside which was passed by the District Magistrate. The impugned order also permitted the in-laws (respondent 1 and 2) to live in the suit property along with the petitioner. Prathiba M Singh, J., held that the Divisional Commissioner has held that the in-laws have a right to stay in the suit property, which obviously cannot be questioned because the property belongs to them. Res ..read more