Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Even if there are certain clauses which the parties may have aided from the tenancy legislation, is no ground to … declare the unambiguous leave and licence agreement to be an agreement of tenancy ignoring preponderance of probability.”
“What the tenants really seek is not just a right to dictate the terms of that tenancy beyond anything the law contemplates, but to impermissibly expand tenancy rights to the prejudice of the property owner — without taking the slightest steps to acquire those ownership rights.”
There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsity on a matter of substance and the Court must be satisfied and there must be reasonable foundation for the charge and the prosecution of the offender is necessary in the interest of justice.
The Delhi High Court held that the law did not permit even the husband to take household articles including the jewellery without the consent and knowledge of his wife.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that even if the lease has expired the electricity cannot be cut off to the petitioner while he is in possession of the suit property.
Delhi High Court: In a matter with regard to the grant of leave to defend, Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed that, the tenant
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi* and Abhay S. Oka, JJ has held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ has reiterated the position that the tenants would not be
Supreme Court: Deciding the ambit of the bar of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
Supreme Court: Interpreting the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act, 1956, the bench of UU Lalit and S. Ravindra
by Abhishek Gulatee[1]
“Even if a male member had taken premises on rent, he is tenant in his individual capacity and not as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family in the absence of any evidence that Karta was doing the business for and on behalf of Joint Hindu Family.”
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit, J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. Background The facts of the case are such
Rajasthan High Court: Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J., dismissed a writ petition which was filed aggrieved by the order of the Rent Tribunal
by Akshit Sachdeva*
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, Indu Malhotra and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that an agriculturist cannot part with
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a petition that challenged the impugned order whereby petitioner’s application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
Supreme Court: Overruling the verdict in Appa Narsappa Magdum [Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar, (1999) 4 SCC 443, the 3-judge
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a petition filed by the allottee of the subject shop who was charged with an offence
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of A.M. Dhavale, J. dismissed a second appeal filed against the order made in first