Friday, April 18, 2008

Supreme Court and Landlord

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that tenants in Delhi who used leased premises for commercial purposes can be evicted if the landlord required it for bonafide purpose. Do you welcome the SC ruling?

Niceguy251 says: We have to first see if it is residential property which is being used by tenent for commercial purpose then it is illegal as it is but if it is commercial then we need to be fair to both. It is ridiculous that rent of Rs 100.00 pm is being paid for shops in Conaught Place by old tenents and at the same time if owner wants to evict tenent just to have little more rent is also not palatable. The law should protect both. There should be a legal lease document for fixed period and it could be renewed only if both parties agree. Owner should not be allowed to evict tenent during currency of agreement except if it is being used for illegal purposes and similarly if the agreement is over and tenenat is not vacating the place should be sealed pending judgement. And in such cases the tenent should be asked to pay legal costs as well as penal rent ( say triple the pervailing market rent ) if it is proved he is at fault.


Lp53 says: Yes, I welcome it. I am saddened by the fact that juidiciary has to legislate these days..


Ruggedboyz says: i dont think one can comment on it as yes or no for supreme court might have gone through the clauses and the problems they face and then judged in their favour personally if u ask me, i like it if the landlord has more power on his land but one would like to think of a guy whose business will go haywire in case something of that sort is done to him so really can say a yes or no on this


Vs says: YES,

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

We have to first see if it is residential property which is being used by tenent for commercial purpose then it is illegal as it is but if it is commercial then we need to be fair to both. It is ridiculous that rent of Rs 100.00 pm is being paid for shops in Conaught Place by old tenents and at the same time if owner wants to evict tenent just to have little more rent is also not palatable. The law should protect both. There should be a legal lease document for fixed period and it could be renewed only if both parties agree. Owner should not be allowed to evict tenent during currency of agreement except if it is being used for illegal purposes and similarly if the agreement is over and tenenat is not vacating the place should be sealed pending judgement. And in such cases the tenent should be asked to pay legal costs as well as penal rent ( say triple the pervailing market rent ) if it is proved he is at fault.

Anonymous said...

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Pen Drive, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://pen-drive-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I welcome it. I am saddened by the fact that juidiciary has to legislate these days..

Anonymous said...

i dont think one can comment on it as yes or no for supreme court might have gone through the clauses and the problems they face and then judged in their favour
personally if u ask me, i like it if the landlord has more power on his land but one would like to think of a guy whose business will go haywire in case something of that sort is done to him so really can say a yes or no on this

Anonymous said...

YES,