MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order as Tenant Fails to Disprove Landlord's Right to Eviction

05 September 2024 5:33 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment dated October 05, 2023, the Supreme Court of India ruled on a significant eviction case where a tenant challenged an eviction order under Section 13-B of the Act. The Court upheld the eviction order, emphasizing that the tenant failed to provide sufficient grounds to disentitle the landlord from obtaining a summary eviction order.

The case involved Mukesh Kumar, the tenant of Shop No. 5 at Guru Amardas Chowk, Model Town, Jalandhar, who had been facing eviction from the said shop. S. Kuldeep Singh, the owner, had filed an Eviction Application under Section 13-B of the Act, stating that he required the premises for his use. Kumar contested the eviction, disputing Singh's ownership and claiming that Singh possessed other shops, which he argued disqualified the eviction under Section 13-B.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, highlighted that the tenant had failed to establish valid grounds to contest the eviction. It noted that Mukesh Kumar's objections, including his dispute over the landlord's ownership and the alleged possession of other shops, were unsustainable.

The Court emphasized the importance of the tenant's responsibility to disclose facts that would disentitle the landlord from obtaining a summary eviction order under Section 13-B of the Act. It clarified that the onus was on the tenant to provide such grounds, which Mukesh Kumar had not adequately done in this case.

Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, affirming the decisions of the Rent Controller and the High Court. The Court's ruling signifies the significance of complying with the legal requirements for eviction and the need for tenants to establish strong and valid defenses when contesting eviction orders.

Date of Decision: October 05, 2023

MUKESH KUMAR   vs S. KULDEEP SINGH                 

Latest Legal News