Rent Control & Eviction - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 Appellate Authority's Error - The Appellate Authority's reversal of the Prescribed Authority's findings was unsustainable, as it failed to provide convincing reasons to dislodge the evidence-based conclusion of bona fide need. The assumption that the landlord had substantial business interests was not supported by...
Rent Control & Eviction - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025
Appellate Authority's Error - The Appellate Authority's reversal of the Prescribed Authority's findings was unsustainable, as it failed to provide convincing reasons to dislodge the evidence-based conclusion of bona fide need. The assumption that the landlord had substantial business interests was not supported by documentary evidence, and the Prescribed Authority's findings on the landlord's limited income were consistent with the record. Murlidhar Aggarwal v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 476 : 2025 INSC 564
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu) – Section 10(2)(i) – Notice Not Mandatory - Held, issuance of a two-month notice under the Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) is not a mandatory condition precedent for a landlord to seek eviction- The Explanation merely provides an instance where default is presumed to be wilful- It does not take away the Rent Controller's discretion to determine wilfulness in the absence of such notice- Appeal dismissed. [Relied on S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman (1985) 1 SCC 591; Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1247; Paras 25-28] K. Subramaniam v. Krishna Mills Pvt.Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1098 : 2025 INSC 1309
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu) – Section 10(2)(i) – Wilful Default– "Without Prejudice" Payments- Held, filing of appeal or revision against an order fixing fair rent does not operate as an automatic stay of execution – Failure to pay determined rent during the pendency of proceedings, without obtaining a specific stay order from the appellate/revisional forum, constitutes 'wilful default' warranting eviction- Mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the decree or order under appeal, as per the statutory ordainment in Order XLI Rule 5(1) of the CPC- Where a tenant challenges the fixation of fair rent but fails to seek or obtain a stay of its operation, the failure to pay the determined rent constitutes wilful default- The Court clarified that where a tenant pays arrears pursuant to a judicial order marked "without prejudice," such payment does not constitute a waiver of the landlord's right to seek ejectment for the prior wilful default- The payment merely saves the tenant from immediate adverse consequences during the pendency of the lis but does not erase the default committed earlier. [Paras 23, 24, 29, 30] K. Subramaniam v. Krishna Mills Pvt.Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1098 : 2025 INSC 1309
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Kerala) – Sections 11, 12, and 18 – Eviction for Arrears of Rent – Procedure in Appeal – Held, in an appeal challenging an eviction order passed under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965, a fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1965 before the Appellate Authority is not mandatory - Section 12(1) specifically bars a tenant from contesting an eviction petition or preferring an appeal unless they have paid or deposited all arrears of rent admitted to be due - The power to evict under Section 12(3) is by operation of law, and no fresh application for eviction is required from the landlord - As the Appellate Authority only tests the exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent Control Court, it is not required to re-determine the issue of default or the outstanding amount of rent - Appellate Authority has full discretion to pass any order in accordance with law, including dismissing the appeal, extending time for deposit, or directing the tenant to pay/deposit the amount determined by the Rent Controller as a condition for hearing the appeal - The Appellate Authority is not obliged to give four weeks' time to deposit the outstanding rent as stipulated in the proviso to Section 12(2) for the Rent Control Court, as the Appellate Authority is not passing an order under Section 12(3) once again -Appeals allowed. [Relied on Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. vs. Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 400; Paras 28-38, 43, 44] P.U. Sidhique v. Zakariya, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1130 : 2025 INSC 1340
Delay in Adjudication - Judicial Concern and Directions - Court expressed deep concern over the dispute lasting over two and a half decades. It highlighted that landlords were deprived of monetary fruits from their property for a quarter-century. Held, that such delays cause suffering to both landlords (deprivation of property/dues) and tenants (large sums payable at once). The application for mesne profits, as the order of the Small Causes Court itself reflects, took 11 years and more to decide. The Court requested the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to obtain a report on the pendency of landlord-tenant disputes in concerned courts and to take appropriate steps for their expeditious disposal if many such instances are found. (Para 13, 14) Mohit Suresh Harchandrai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 663
Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Mesne Profits - Determination of rate and interest - Held and affirmed the High Court's conclusion regarding mesne profits in a longstanding landlord-tenant dispute but modified the interest rate from 8% to 6 % per annum. The dispute concerned the 'per square foot rate' for mesne profit calculation for Respondent's occupation as a tenant. (Para 12) Mohit Suresh Harchandrai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 663
Landlord-Tenant Disputes - Stay of Trial - Expeditious Disposal - Directive to High Court – The Supreme Court directed the Allahabad High Court to prioritise and expedite the disposal of appeals, revisions, and original petitions where trial proceedings have been stayed, particularly in landlord-tenant disputes. The Court emphasized out-of-turn hearings to avoid delays in concluding such matters. The order was issued in a case where a landlord sought expeditious hearing due to a stay on eviction proceedings. The Supreme Court noted the pendency of numerous petitions but stressed the need for prompt resolution in cases where trials are stayed, to prevent prolonged delays. A copy of the order was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for compliance. Rajat Gaera vs Tarun Rawat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 490
Landlord-Tenant - Eviction - Bona Fide Need - Landlord's discretion in selecting premises - Appeal against the dismissal of an eviction suit – Held, a landlord is the best judge to determine which tenanted premises best suits their bona fide need, and a tenant cannot dictate that the landlord seek vacation from alternative properties merely for the tenant's convenience. The Court allowed the landlord's appeal, setting aside concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, where the eviction was sought to establish an ultrasound machine business for the landlord's two unemployed sons. The suit premises was deemed most suitable due to its adjacency to a medical clinic and pathology center, with the landlord proving financial capacity and genuine need to augment family income. The tenant's objection based on the landlord's ownership of other properties was rejected, emphasizing that bona fide need must be real, not a mere whim, but once established, the landlord's choice of premises is unassailable. (Para 10 - 12) Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 250 : 2025 INSC 271
Landlord-Tenant Law – Eviction Suit – Bona Fide Need – Challenge to Title of Landlord - Eviction suit – Held, a tenant who came into possession of rented premises through a rent deed executed by a landlord cannot subsequently challenge the landlord's ownership, especially after having paid rent for decades - The bona fide need was projected as the plaintiff joining her husband's sweets and savouries business, which operates in an adjacent shop, to expand it into the rented premises - The bona fide need stands established in this case - The concurring decisions of the three courts had "not considered the material evidence and entered into findings in a perverse manner based on mere surmises and conjectures" - The tenant having come into possession of the tenanted premises by a rent deed executed by the earlier landlord, cannot turn around and challenge his ownership - Directed the recovery of rent arrears from January 2000 till the handing over of possession - Appeal allowed. [Paras 9 - 14] Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1081 : 2025 INSC 1099
Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (West Bengal); Sections 7 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 - Whether the provision of Section 7 of the Tenancy Act regarding the deposit of rent and filing of an application within the specified time, are mandatory or directory, and whether the benefit of Section 5 of the limitation Act, can be invoked by the tenant for condonation of delay – Held, the compliance required under by the tenant under Sections 7(1) and the first part of section 7(2) of the Tenancy Act regarding the deposit of rent and the filing of an application within the specified time is mandatory - Applicability of the limitation Act to proceedings under the Tenancy Act is subject to the provisions of this Act relating to Limitation - This means that if a shorter time period is specified for a proceeding under the Tenancy Act cannot be used to extend it - The term 'shall' in section 7(1) and first part of section 7(2) indicates a mandatory obligation on the tenant to pay or deposit rent - Section 7(2) allows for a one-time extension of upto 2 months, applies only to the payment of the amount specified in a Court Order after the rent has been determined - Since the tenant is required to 'deposit the amount admitted him to be due' together with an application for rent determination within specified time, the deposit and the application are considered a precondition for avoiding eviction - The term 'together' means 'simultaneously' or 'conjointly' - Therefore, a tenant cannot invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay in filing the application - Consequences for non-compliance are specified in Section 7(3) which mandates the tenant's defence against eviction “shall be struck out” if they fail to deposit or pay the required amount within the specified time or any granted extension - The consequences further reinforces the mandatory nature of provision - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 17, 19-21, 22-24, 28, 29, 33-35] Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : 2025 INSC 984
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Overriding Effect over State Rent Control Legislations - Doctrine of Stare Decisis - Binding Nature of Larger Bench Decisions – Held, the provisions of the PP Act 1971 prevail over State Rent Control legislations regardless of whether the premises were let out prior to or after the commencement of the Act - Clarified that once the character of a premises transforms into "public premises" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the PP Act, the summary procedure for eviction under the Act applies to all occupants, including those inducted as tenants before the premises were acquired by the Government or a statutory corporation - Held that a Bench of lesser or co-equal strength must strictly follow the law declared by a larger Bench - Criticized the departure taken in Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2014), stating that not following the law laid down by a Constitution Bench under the "guise of clarifying" it constitutes judicial indiscipline. [Relied on Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Another vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 406; Paras 5-10] Life Insurance Corporation v. Vita, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1198 : 2025 INSC 1419
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 7 - Limitation Act, 1963; Article 52 and Section 18 - Recovery of Arrears – Effect of acknowledgment in writing - Held, the Limitation Act applies to Public Premises Act. The respondents cannot argue that only section 3 of the Limitation Act along with the limitation provided under Article 52 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act will apply and not section 18 of the same Act. Once the Limitation Act applies, all its provisions will be applicable to the proceedings under the PP Act. The High Court erred in deciding limitation without awaiting the outcome of Licensees' intra-court appeals on retrospective tariff revision, as the issues were interlinked. If the appeals are allowed by the Division Bench, there would no question of any retrospective recovery; the demands would be liable to be withdrawn. However, if the respondents fail, they would be liable to pay the demand in accordance with law alongwith admissible interest. (Para 10 - 17) New Mangalore Port Trust v. Clifford D. Souza, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 397 : 2025 INSC 440 : (2025) 5 SCC 577
Rental Compensation/Mesne Profits for Illegal Occupation – Held, the Reference Court's enhancement of compensation under Section 26 of the 2013 Act was justified as it correctly adopted the "average sale price" method by considering one-half of the highest-priced sale instances, along with a 10% annual increase for the time gap, as mandated by Section 26(1)(b) read with Explanations 1 and 2 - The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) erred in relying solely on the ready reckoner rates while ignoring genuine and undisputed sale instances of similar land in the vicinity - High Court was wrong to interfere with the Reference Court's finding on market value - Noted that the 'rental compensation' in land acquisition proceedings is granted only when the owner is completely deprived of its property's use - that rental compensation requires complete deprivation of property; denies Rs. 238 Crore claim against respondent - Appeal allowed. [Relied on R.L. Jain v. DDA 2004 4 SCC 79; Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil and Others v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 15 SCC 657; Paras 24-35] Pradyumna Mukund Kokil v. Nashik Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1007 : 2025 INSC 1236
Rent Control Act, 1999 (Maharashtra) - Landlord-tenant relationship terminates only upon the passing of the eviction decree. Accordingly, mesne profits are to be calculated from the date of the decree. Amritpal Jagmohan Sethi v. Haribhau Pundlik Ingole, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 400
Rent Control and Eviction – Bona Fide Need – Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court – The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment that had reversed concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court regarding a landlord's bona fide need for non-residential premises - Held, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by engaging in a "microscopic scrutiny" of pleadings and evidence - Such interference in revisional jurisdiction is not permitted unless the findings of the lower courts are ex-facie without authority - reaffirmed that a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord which alternative accommodation is suitable for their business needs or compel them to use residential premises for commercial purposes simply because a commercial electricity connection was obtained during the pendency of the suit - While restoring the eviction decree, granted the respondents time until June 30, 2026, to vacate the premises, subject to filing a usual undertaking and payment of rent arrears. [Relied on Bhupinder Singh Bawa vs. Asha Devi, (2016) 10 SCC 209; Paras 5-7] Rajani Manohar Kuntha v Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1253
Renting of Residential Dwelling - Hostel Accommodation - Entry 13 of Notification No. 9/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 – Held, the service of leasing residential premises as a hostel to students and working professionals qualifies for GST exemption as "renting of residential dwelling for use as resident the term "residential dwelling" is not defined under GST laws - Relying on normal trade parlance and the CBIC Education Guide (2012), it held that "residential dwelling" means any residential accommodation intended for long-term stay, excluding places meant for temporary stay like hotels or inns - A hostel is a "house of residence" and does not lose its residential character merely because the owner charges a fee - clarified that Entry 13 does not mandate that the lessee must use the dwelling as their own residence; it only requires that the dwelling be used for residence - Since the ultimate occupants (students/working professionals) used the property for eating, drinking, and sleeping, the condition of "use as residence" stood satisfied - adopted the principle of 'Purposive Interpretation,' stating that the legislative intent was to ensure that rented properties used for residential purposes do not suffer the burden of 18% GST - Narrowing the exemption to only cases where the service recipient is the resident would defeat this objective and pass costs onto students - While an exemption notification must be construed strictly at the threshold, once the subject falls within the ambit of the notification, it must be construed liberally to give full effect to the benefit - Appeal dismissed. [Relied on Bandu Ravji Nikam v. Acharyaratna Deshbushan Shikshan Prasark Mandal; Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat AIR 1954 SC 316; Union of India v. Wood Papers Limited 1990 4 SCC 256; Paras 42-64] State of Karnataka v. Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1167 : 2025 INSC 1380
Rights of Tenant in Secured Asset - Unregistered Tenancy Agreement - Interplay between SARFAESI Act, TP Act and rent control laws – Held, Onus lies on tenant claiming through an oral/unregistered agreement to produce rent receipts, property/water taxes receipts, electricity charges etc. to establish creation of valid tenancy - Held that the tenant cannot resist eviction without establishing tenancy was created before mortgage - Even if such tenancies are created through an oral/unregistered agreement, it would not continue beyond 1 year from issuance of notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and tenant upon expiry of said period shall be deemed to be a 'tenant in sufferance' - Held that tenant in present case failed to prove tenancy. Set aside order passed by High Court and directed status quo in respect of secured asset till disposal of securitization application. Appeal allowed. [Relied on Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Anr. (2019) 9 SCC 94; Para 17, 18, 23, 24] PNB Housing Finance v. Sh. Manoj Saha, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 723 : 2025 INSC 847
Tenancy Laws - Eviction - Landlord and Tenant - Bona Fide Requirement - Family Needs - Tenant's Failure to Seek Alternative Accommodation - No Large-Scale Business by Tenant - The landlord sought eviction of the tenant, who occupied the property for 73 years, including 63 years post-lease expiry, citing the property's need for his disabled, unemployed son. The tenant claimed hardship but failed to demonstrate efforts to secure alternative accommodation. The landlord's family owned no other property, and their business was not substantial enough to negate the bona fide need. Held, a landlord's bona fide requirement under tenancy laws includes the needs of family members, not solely the landlord. The tenant's hardship claim was dismissed due to lack of evidence of attempts to find alternative accommodation during prolonged litigation. The tenant's objection, based on alleged business operations, was rejected as no significant business was proven to counter the landlord's claim. The Court allowed the landlord's appeal, upholding the eviction as the need was genuine and the tenant's objections unsustainable. [Referred: Mohd. Ayub v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155; Paras 25 & 28] Murlidhar Aggarwal v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 476 : 2025 INSC 564
Tenancy - Supreme Court sends tenant to Jail for not vacating premises and imposes Rs. 5 lakhs fine on aged co-tenant - Found guilty of deliberate and wilful non-compliance of Supreme Court orders dt. 20.09.2024 and 09.09.2025 - Direction were given to the District Judge to appoint a bailiff with police help to take possession of the premises within two weeks - An inventory of tenant articles shall be prepared and kept in safe custody for delivery, if demanded - Appellate authority shall report action to the Supreme Court Registrar. [Paras 3 - 7] Laxmi Construction v. Harsh Goyal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 956
Unlawful Occupation - Held, Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and can be exercised in exceptional cases to address prolonged injustice, despite the availability of alternative remedies. The High Court erred in dismissing a writ petition seeking recovery of flats unlawfully occupied by the Maharashtra Police Department since 1940, without rent payment since 2008, by citing the availability of a civil suit. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to alternative remedies is a rule of discretion, not compulsion. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, criticizing its failure to consider the 84-year unlawful occupation, likely initiated by forcible taking during British rule in the 1940s. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to file an affidavit undertaking to vacate the flats within four months and hand over possession to the appellants. Appeal allowed; Maharashtra Police Department ordered to vacate the flats within four months. Neha Chandrakant Shroff v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 430 : 2025 INSC 484
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Uttar Pradesh), Proviso to Section 21(1)(a) - Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972; Rule 16(2) - Comparative Hardship - Despite the tenant's long possession (73 years, including 63 years post-lease expiry), the tenant's multiple business ventures, inherited properties, and lack of effort to seek alternative accommodation tilted the balance in favor of the landlord. The tenant's claims of business losses and pending partition suits were insufficient to outweigh the landlord's pressing need. Murlidhar Aggarwal v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 476 : 2025 INSC 564
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Uttar Pradesh), Section 21(1)(a) and 21(7) - Bona fide need - Comparative hardship - Landlord-tenant dispute - Legal representatives - Held, under Section 21(7), legal representatives of a deceased landlord can prosecute an eviction application based on their own need, substituting the original landlord's need. The objection to the maintainability of the appeal by the legal representatives was rejected. Murlidhar Aggarwal v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 476 : 2025 INSC 564