FIRST LAW

Rent Law - Mere fact that the tenant continues in possession and rent is accepted and the suit is not instituted are insufficient circumstances for inferring an intention to create a new tenancy after expiration of the first.

1. Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance, AIR 1999 SC 100 The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.

The landlord need not to show evidence that he has experience of said business that he proposes to start. In fact, it is not necessary for landlord to indicate the precise nature of business which he intends to start in the premises.

Rent Control and Eviction - I n a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant.