Digi - Legal Insights

Demand and acceptance of rent by landlord will not amount to waiver of right to claim eviction on account of forfeiture of tenancy.

Matter, concerning a residential flat, does not support Respondents claims based on previous judgments hence; Respondent is directed to hand over possession of suit flat to Petitioner.

To claim protection under Section 15A of Act, Defendant must prove existence of a subsisting license agreement, as Defendants Nos. 4, 4A, and 5 failed to provide evidence of such an agreement, therefore they are not entitled to protection under Act.

As Defendant-tenant failed to make necessary payments within one month of receiving suit notice, landlord is entitled to an eviction decree due to Defendants default.

Impugned order of eviction held proper hence, Petitioner directed to vacate and hand over possession of area in his possession to Respondents within a period of 6 weeks.

Respondent has a vacation home and financial support from her sons in America, indicating she is not in a dire situation hence, three-month period for Respondents to vacate the premises is reasonable.

Courts jurisdiction is limited to address clear errors and not re-evaluating evidence hence, appeal Courts decision placing landlords needs above tenants was upheld as justifiable.

Authority granted to deceased to occupy premises ceased upon his death and his heirs have not claimed tenancy rights thereafter and occupant cannot assert any rights under Will and provisions of Rent Act are inapplicable.

When Appeal Court, upon reviewing available evidence, has reached a probable finding in impugned Judgment, no interference is required in limited revisional jurisdiction of Court.

Impugned order directing Appellant-Licensee to pay damages at double the rate of license the fee or charge of premises fixed under agreement of license, held proper.

Defendant, significantly contributing to flats purchase and loan repayment, was true owner hence, Appellate Courts findings regarding Defendants acquisition of flat were deemed credible and did not require revision.

Legal representatives can continue eviction proceedings for their own bona fide need, and where comparative hardship favors landlord, long-standing tenant’s eviction is justified.