{"id":304074,"date":"2023-10-08T11:00:36","date_gmt":"2023-10-08T05:30:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=304074"},"modified":"2023-10-08T10:36:30","modified_gmt":"2023-10-08T05:06:30","slug":"sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Never Reported Judgment| Restrictions imposed on landlord\u2019s rights in public interest are not unreasonable [(1952) 1 SCC 764]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a case wherein, a petition was filed under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> to set aside the order dated 30-06-1950, the five-judges bench of Patanjali Sastri, CJ., Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea*<\/span>, S.R. Das and Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ., opined that it was true that the profit margin allowed to the landlord under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950<\/a> (‘Rent Control Act’) was much less than what he enjoyed before, but that would not make the restrictions imposed upon the rights of the landlord necessarily unreasonable. Such restrictions might be beneficial and absolutely necessary for the interests of the general public and accordingly dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The petitioner, was a karta of joint Hindu family which consisted of the petitioner, his mother, his infant son. The petitioner with his family resided in a portion of the house owned by him, while the rest of it was let out to tenants. Respondent 1 was a monthly tenant of one shop room on the ground floor of the building and paid monthly rent of Rs. 32.<\/p>\n

Since, Respondent 1 defaulted in rent payment for several months, the petitioner filed an ejectment suit against him in the Small Causes Court, Calcutta and stated that as per Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, if the tenant failed to pay the rent for three consecutive months, his interest was ipso facto determined. Thus, as per order dated 30-11-1949, Respondent 1 was directed to vacate the shop room. Further, on 03-01-1950, Respondent 1 filed an appeal against the judgment, due to which the proceedings of recovery of possession were stayed.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, the Rent Control Act came into force on 31-03-1950 and Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, gave powers to the Court to rescind or vary decrees and orders or give relief in pending suits on condition of the tenant’s paying up all the arrears of rent due up to the date together with interest and costs, within such time as was fixed by the court.<\/p>\n

Since, Section 18 of the Rent Control Act was retrospective in operation, on 30-05-1950, Respondent 1 filed an application before the Trial Court for vacating the ejectment order as per Section 18 of the Rent Control Act and subsequently, on 30-05-1950, the order was made in Respondent 1’s favour and he complied with the Trial Court’s direction relating to payment of arrears of rent with interest and costs.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> and contended that his fundamental right to hold property under Article 19(1)(f)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> had been infringed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The petitioner contended that while the Act had given the largest measure of protection to the tenants, the landlords were precluded from demanding anything in excess of the standard rent.<\/p>\n

The petitioner further contended that the value of the money had gone down by almost five times since 1941 and the price level of building materials and all essential commodities had risen proportionately. However, the tenant had been allowed to continue at the same rent that prevailed in 1941. Thus, the petitioner contended that the profit margin derived from the premises let out to tenants had dwindled down almost to nothing.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that the figures given in the petition were highly inflated and did not represent the real state of affairs. The petitioner had deducted 50% of the gross rental as costs of repairs, though as per Section 38(2) of the Rent Control Act, the tenant was entitled to deduct only 12½% of the yearly rental for effecting essential and necessary repairs, in case the landlord failed or refused to made them. Further, the question as to whether the restrictions imposed by a statutory enactment were reasonable or not could not be judged by reference to the facts of one individual case.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that it was true that the profit margin allowed to the landlord under the Rent Control Act was much less than what he enjoyed before, but that would not make the restrictions imposed upon the rights of the landlord necessarily unreasonable. Such restrictions might be beneficial and absolutely necessary for the interests of the general public.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court agreed with the view laid down by the Special Bench of Calcutta High Court in Ishwari Prasad Goenka<\/span> v. N.R. Sen<\/span> 1951 SCC OnLine Cal 232<\/a>, wherein it was held that the restrictions upon the landlord’s rights imposed by the Rent Control Act were not unreasonable. Thus, the Supreme Court opined that the contentions raised by the petitioner was untenable and accordingly, dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n

[Jugal Kishore Dhandhania v. Kabiraj Kali Ranjan Bhattacharjee, (1952) 1 SCC 764<\/a>, decided on 26-05-1952<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Note: The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997<\/a><\/p>\n

Since, the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 is no longer in force, the regulation of certain incidents of tenancy of premises in Calcutta, Howrah and some other areas in West Bengal is now governed as per the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997<\/a> (‘the Act’). Section 4 and 5 of the Act provides for Obligations of landlords and tenants respectively. Section 6 of the Act provides protection of tenant against the eviction, wherein no order or decree for the recovery of the possession of any premises shall be made by the Controller in favour of the landlord against the tenant, except on an application made to him by the landlord in the prescribed manner on the ground mentioned in the section. Section 7 of the Act provides when a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction. Further, Chapter 9 of the Act provides the provisions regarding essential repairs, wherein Section 35 of the Act specifies the making of repair and taking of measures for maintenance of essential service.<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Respondents<\/span>: B. Sen, Advocate<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by- Justice B.K. Mukherjea<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":304084,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[4531,61715,58925,3391,45998,5363,7921,60261],"class_list":["post-304074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-eviction","tag-landlords-right","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-public_interest","tag-restriction","tag-supreme-court","tag-tenant","tag-unreasonable"],"yoast_head":"\nNever Reported Judgment|Restrictions imposed on landlord's rights in public interest are not unreasonable| SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that restrictions on landlord's rights which might be beneficial and absolutely necessary for the interests of the general public was not unreasonable and dismissed the petition.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment| Restrictions imposed on landlord\u2019s rights in public interest are not unreasonable [(1952) 1 SCC 764]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that restrictions on landlord's rights which might be beneficial and absolutely necessary for the interests of the general public was not unreasonable and dismissed the petition.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-10-08T05:30:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/restriction-landlords-right-public-interest-unreasonable.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"533\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment| Restrictions imposed on landlord\u2019s rights in public interest are not unreasonable [(1952) 1 SCC 764]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgment|Restrictions imposed on landlord's rights in public interest are not unreasonable| SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/restriction-landlords-right-public-interest-unreasonable.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-10-08T05:30:36+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court opined that restrictions on landlord's rights which might be beneficial and absolutely necessary for the interests of the general public was not unreasonable and dismissed the petition.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/restriction-landlords-right-public-interest-unreasonable.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/restriction-landlords-right-public-interest-unreasonable.jpg\",\"width\":800,\"height\":533,\"caption\":\"Never Reported Judgment| Restrictions imposed on landlord’s rights in public interest are not unreasonable [(1952) 1 SCC 764]\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgment| Restrictions imposed on landlord\u2019s rights in public interest are not unreasonable [(1952) 1 SCC 764]\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Never Reported Judgment|Restrictions imposed on landlord's rights in public interest are not unreasonable| SCC Blog","description":"Supreme Court opined that restrictions on landlord's rights which might be beneficial and absolutely necessary for the interests of the general public was not unreasonable and dismissed the petition.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Never Reported Judgment| Restrictions imposed on landlord\u2019s rights in public interest are not unreasonable [(1952) 1 SCC 764]","og_description":"Supreme Court opined that restrictions on landlord's rights which might be beneficial and absolutely necessary for the interests of the general public was not unreasonable and dismissed the petition.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-10-08T05:30:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":533,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/restriction-landlords-right-public-interest-unreasonable.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Never Reported Judgment| Restrictions imposed on landlord\u2019s rights in public interest are not unreasonable [(1952) 1 SCC 764]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/","name":"Never Reported Judgment|Restrictions imposed on landlord's rights in public interest are not unreasonable| SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/restriction-landlords-right-public-interest-unreasonable.jpg","datePublished":"2023-10-08T05:30:36+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Supreme Court opined that restrictions on landlord's rights which might be beneficial and absolutely necessary for the interests of the general public was not unreasonable and dismissed the petition.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/restriction-landlords-right-public-interest-unreasonable.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/restriction-landlords-right-public-interest-unreasonable.jpg","width":800,"height":533,"caption":"Never Reported Judgment| Restrictions imposed on landlord’s rights in public interest are not unreasonable [(1952) 1 SCC 764]"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/08\/sc-restrictions-imposed-on-landlords-rights-in-public-interest-are-not-unreasonable-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Never Reported Judgment| Restrictions imposed on landlord\u2019s rights in public interest are not unreasonable [(1952) 1 SCC 764]"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/restriction-landlords-right-public-interest-unreasonable.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":223730,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/01\/uk-sc-reasonableness-is-always-fact-specific-and-decisions-based-on-similar-factual-circumstances-are-not-decisive\/","url_meta":{"origin":304074,"position":0},"title":"UK SC | Reasonableness is always fact-specific and decisions based on similar factual circumstances are not decisive","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 1, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: A Full Bench of Lord Briggs (President), Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Wilson and Lady Arden, JJ. allowed the appeal by a majority of three to two. Lord Briggs gives the main Judgment with which Lord Carnwath and Lord Hodge agree. Lady Arden and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":218406,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/20\/hp-hc-disconnecting-electricity-of-tenant-held-unreasonable-where-landlord-found-hell-bent-to-show-him-the-door-of-the-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":304074,"position":1},"title":"HP HC | Disconnecting electricity of tenant held unreasonable where landlord found hell-bent to show him the door of the Court","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 20, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. entertained a petition filed by a landlord against the order passed by the Rent Controller in favor of the tenant, whose supply of electricity was unreasonably disconnected by the said landlord. Factual matrix of the case was that the tenant filed an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324938,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/23\/mere-deposit-of-rent-not-sufficient-to-establish-landlord-tenant-relationship-between-tenants-mortgagee-landlord-of-leased-property-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":304074,"position":2},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | Mere deposit of monthly rent by mortgagee not sufficient to establish landlord-tenant relationship between tenant\u2019s mortgagee and landlord of leased property [(1953) 1 SCC 603]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"June 23, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on landlord-tenant relationship.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"landlord-tenant relationship","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/NRJ-1-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/NRJ-1-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/NRJ-1-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/NRJ-1-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":360598,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/eviction-landlord-pension-income-ground-to-counter-bonafide-need-hp-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":304074,"position":3},"title":"Can landlord\u2019s pension income be used as a ground to counter bona-fide requirement in eviction proceedings? Himachal Pradesh HC answers","author":"Editor","date":"September 18, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe landlord had a right to put his property for better use and to obtain a higher income. He had a right to choose the place for the business which was most suitable to him\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"landlord's pension income","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/landlords-pension-income.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/landlords-pension-income.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/landlords-pension-income.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/landlords-pension-income.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":202889,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/30\/sc-archives-when-sc-reversed-hc-order-for-incomprehensible-content\/","url_meta":{"origin":304074,"position":4},"title":"SC Archives| When SC reversed HC order for \u201cincomprehensible content\u201d","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 30, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: A special leave petition was filed before a Division Bench comprising of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.\u00a0 against the judgment of H.P. High Court in a landlord-tenant dispute. The Hon\u2019ble Bench found the judgment impugned to be incomprehensible and therefore set aside the judgment. The High\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":300615,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/03\/when-sc-considered-documentary-evidence-to-determine-whether-lane-between-house-of-parties-was-public-or-private\/","url_meta":{"origin":304074,"position":5},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court determined the public or private status of the lane between the houses [(1952) 1 SCC 296]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"September 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on use and enjoyment of property.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"lane private or public","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/lane-private-or-public.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/lane-private-or-public.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/lane-private-or-public.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/lane-private-or-public.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/304074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=304074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/304074\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/304084"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=304074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=304074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=304074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}