Search Results for "rent control revision"

678 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 678 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Refers Satyawati Sharma to Larger Bench in Delhi Rent Control Eviction Case — Landlord's Bonafide Need for Non-Residential Premises Under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of appeals arising from eviction petitions filed by landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control A...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Landlord's Petition in Rent Control Dispute Over Subletting and Bona Fide Requirement. Landlord Failed to Prove Illegal Subletting and Bona Fide Need for Suit Property Under Bombay Rent Act.

The petitioner, Milind Rajkumar Wagholikar (Shah), was the landlord of a suit property bearing CTS No. 506/34, new CTS No. 866, admeasuring about 7500...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Decree Against Tenants for Default in Rent Payment, Dismisses Landlords' Cross-Appeal on Subletting. The Court held that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were direct tenants of the Plaintiffs and not sub-tenants, and decreed eviction solely on ground of default in payment of rent.

The case involves cross proceedings between the landlords (Plaintiffs) and the tenants (Defendant Nos. 2 and 3) concerning a suit premises in Pune. Th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant's Petition Challenging Ejectment Order in Rent Dispute. Subletting Without Landlord's Consent Under Section 15 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Justifies Eviction.

The petitioner, Rasiklal Kumbha Gala, was the original respondent in an ejectment application filed by the respondent, Manilal Ravji, before the Addit...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Revision Application of Sub-Tenant in Rent Control Matter. Sub-tenant with paid-up capital less than Rs 1 crore held entitled to protection under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 despite tenant's exclusion under Section 3(1)(b).

The case involves a dispute over the applicability of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to a sub-tenant. The applicant, Frick India Ltd, claimed ...