A tenant is entitled to several rights during the periods of their tenancy. These include access to essential services and common amenities, eviction only through the procedure laid down in the specific Rent Control Act, and fair rent.
The judgments discussed below elaborate upon the rights of the tenants in different facts and circumstances.
Is the landlord required to establish their derivative title if it is challenged by a tenant?
What is the procedure to be followed while evicting a tenant?
Is a suit for eviction maintainable before the wakf tribunal?
The Supreme Court has held that while the landlord is not required to establish their title in the subject property in a landlord-tenant dispute, a derivative title must be established in some form.
A tenant can only be evicted by following the procedure laid down concerning rent control laws and not by filing a suit of possession against them.
A claim for eviction can be brought before a Wakf Tribunal if the tenant disputes that the property is not a wakf, according to the Supreme Court. This is because the Wakf Tribunal is the only one who can decide if the property belongs to wakf.
Supreme Court of India
Vinay Eknath Lad vs Chiu Mao Chen on 18 December, 2019
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4726 OF 2010
VINAY EKNATH LAD …....APPELLANT
VERSUS
CHIU MAO CHEN …...RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
The appellant before us is the owner of a premises comprising of a shop room, numbered 3 in the ground floor of Sabari Complex, Residency Road, Richmond Town, Bengaluru 560025. This premises is the subject of dispute in this appeal. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by “Sri Sabari Corporation” styled as a co- ownership firm comprising of seventeen individuals. All these individuals were also described as plaintiffs (a) to (q) in the suit in the capacity of co-owners. They shall be referred to later in this judgment as the “original plaintiffs”. Signature Not Verified The mother of the sole respondent was inducted as the Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2019.12.19 12:32:57 IST Reason:
lessee of the subject-premises on 10 th May, 1978. At that point of time, the owner of the premises was a partnership firm with the same trade name. Admitted position is that on his mother’s death in the year 1996, the respondent became the tenant of the subject premises. The original plaintiffs through their learned Advocates issued a notice terminating the lease in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 25/27th September, 2006. In this notice, the nature of occupation has been interchangeably used as “tenancy” and “lease”, but that factor is not of much significance for determining the rights of the parties in this appeal. The suit was instituted in the Court of the XII City Civil Judge, Bangalore on 15th November 2006 claiming, inter-alia, delivery of vacant possession of the subject premises and mesne profit. We shall subsequently refer to the respondent as defendant. The original plaintiffs claim to have had derived their right, title and interest to the subject premises from the partnership firm after its dissolution. It has been contended on their behalf that some of them are the erstwhile partners and others are their relatives and
they came to own the subject premises as residue property in accordance with Section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession as well as mesne profit from the date of service of notice of termination. The defendant was given six months’ time to vacate the subject-premises. The defendant, however, was successful in his appeal before the High Court and the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed. The present appellant is the successor-in-interest of the seventeen individuals who had instituted the suit in the name of joint proprietary firm. This appellant claims to have had purchased the subject premises from the original owners. His substitution in this appeal was allowed by this Court by an order passed on 7th January, 2010.
2. The main question which arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether the original plaintiffs had the locus to institute the suit or not. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the said plaintiffs could not have had terminated the tenancy as they did not have jural relationship with the defendant to initiate the action. It
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
The Rent Control Act is the governing law in India for controlling rent, protecting landlords' rights, and protecting tenants' rights.
In 1948, the legislature approved a central Rent Control Act. It establishes the rules for renting a property and ensures that neither the landlords' nor the tenants' rights are exploited. It should also be mentioned that each state currently has its own Rent Control Act, which, while mostly similar, has some minor variances.
In case you are involved in a landlord-tenant dispute, it is significant that you understand your rights and the procedure you need to follow to strengthen your stand in the case. This is why it is critical to seek legal advice from a tenancy lawyer who can guide you through the necessary processes and assist you with the procedures. A lawyer will be able to better assess the situation and aid you in developing an effective plan for resolving your legal problem.
668+ Lawyers are online 
