Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Rent Control & Eviction

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...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Rent Control & Eviction

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags