best Lawyers in Delhi and Mumbai

CONSULT THE BEST LANDLORD AND TENANT LAWYERS IN CHHOTIKHATU, NAGAUR

We help you to consult and hire the best Supreme Court & High Court Landlord And Tenant lawyers in Chhotikhatu, Nagaur. Use filters to narrow your search and find the best advocate in Chhotikhatu, Nagaur, whether its a family dispute or divorce lawyer, property lawyer, employment or labor court lawyer, criminal lawyer, recovery or cheque bounce lawyer, taxation or corporate lawyer, or a lawyer expert in any other field of law.

Get Legal Consultation




  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  3. Rajasthan
  4. Nagaur
  5. Chhotikhatu
  6. Landlord And Tenant

Lawyers for Landlord And Tenant in Chhotikhatu, Nagaur

Having your own place is every person’s dream, albeit it’s on a rent basis. Having your own property with a depression happening worldwide could also be a difficult task to understand. Watching the increasing price and scarcity of land, renting a neighborhood is getting to be an intellectual decision. But before taking any property on rent one possesses to undergo several documents for a secure and secure transaction between him and thus the owner or owner of the said estate. Each state has its own set of rules and guidelines for such transitions. Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999, land (Regulation & Development ) Act, 2016 also mentioned because the RERA Act are a few of to mention.

What is the law related to landlord and tenant?

The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Ahead of renting a property, one should look for certain pointers which can guarantee a secure transaction. Each state has its own rent rates, guidelines stated by the Ministry of Housing and concrete Affairs. The below-stated documents are required to be taken into consideration before taking or giving an estate on rent.

  1. An agreement

  2. Maintenance of the Property

  3. Uninhabitable Condition

  4. Damage of Property after Tenancy Commences

  5. Essential Supplies

  6. Eviction of Tenants

  7. Death of the Tenant

  8. Rent Payable

  9. Security Deposit

  10. Real Estate (Regulation & Development ) Act, 2016

Redevelopment and maintenance of the building solely depend on the committee of the society. The building should be maintained so that a community of people can reside, and it's done by the maintenance money paid by the tenants of the building.

If the building isn't preserved and residing in such an area can cause damage to any tenant or any inhabitant, the members of the society are often held liable for not performing their duties and lay people’s lives in jeopardy. As a tenant or a private resident in an estate that features a bent to travel for redevelopment, they need to be made aware of the below-listed document before giving their consent to such agreement.

Documents for redevelopment:

  1. Copy of C. S. Plan

  2. Copy of D. P remark

  3. Copy of Inspection Extract

  4. Copy of Road Line Remark (Rd. Widening documents)

  5. Copy of Occupation Certificate Copy

  6. Copy Of Sanctioned / Approved Plans

  7. Copy Of Property Card

  8. Copy Of Ownership Proof 

  9. All the Legal Documents concerning Land & Building

  10. Individual Agreement of Members and Shops (If Any)

  11. Copy Of Electricity & property tax Bill

  12. Copy Of Water bill

  13. Copy Of Existing Area Documents

  14. List Society Members and Their Flat No.

  15. Flat / Shop Wise Carpet Area List

Why do you need to hire a lawyer for landlord and tenant cases?

Being a resident of a building from 1975 and has been paying his maintenance diligently on time. Since 2016 he has been noticing leakage on his roof, after lecture other residents he came to know that there has been leakage since 2010 but it isn't addressed since the committee members thought that the repair work was expensive and wasn't required. After discussing the issues within the subsequent Annual General Meeting, the committee made a choice of getting an audit done by an auditor to determine if the building needs any more repairs. The audit report stated that the building wasn't maintained and can be demolished as soon as possible or it'd fall and cause loss of life and property. The committee didn't pay any heed thereto and continued to stay in it. At some point, a pipe from the surface of the building fell over a car which resulted in a broken bonnet. M after this instance decided to need legal help.

As seen above, this type of behavior on the part of the owner or landlord can call unpredictable danger. Advocates in such situations file a notice against such people and thus the Courts confirm that the concerned people compel with the orders, if found guilty.

How to register your case?

Against the owner or owner.

Legal Steps to be taken in several cases of Harassment

Lodge a Police Complaint: If you're harassed by your landlord, the first thing that has got to be done is to lodge a complaint with the Police. you'll lodge the complaint by following the below-mentioned steps:

  1. The tenant should attend the police station having jurisdiction over the planet where the offense is committed.

  2. Report to the officer-in-charge/ police headquarters officer and tell the officer to register the complaint.

  3. Also mention the names of the witnesses, if there are any witnesses present.

In case the knowledge is given on the phone, you need to subsequently attend the police station for registration of F.I.R.

After filing the FIR, you need not forget to need a copy of the FIR for further procedures.

Sexual Harassment: There are sort of cases registered with the police during which the landlords committed harassment of various nature such as passing lewd comments, staring, intimidation, trespass for causing harassment, even insertion of cameras for the recording of activities. If this type of harassment is faced by the tenant from the owner, the tenant can file a complaint with the local police. it is vital to collect and preserve evidence then giving the same to the police.

Harassment Through Mischief: Section 425 of IPC states that whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he's likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the general public or to a private, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or within things thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief. you'll file suit for declaration and injunction during a civil court also. you'll also claim damages within an equivalent suit.

Landlord Filing Case For Eviction on False Grounds: It is seen that the landlord files a notice of eviction on false grounds. For example, the landlord may evade the receipt of rent for a month and then use the same fact of willfully failing to pay rent as a ground to evict the tenant. However, in such cases also, the Rent Control Act can provide a remedy to the tenant.

Against the Tenant.

Common Grounds For Tenant Eviction: The Rent Control Acts of most states specify certain common grounds for evicting the tenant, which include the following:

  1. Non-payment of rent

  2. Sub-letting rented premises or a part of it without the landlord’s permission

  3. Misuse of rented premises

  4. Damaging (major) rented premises

  5. Not vacating the rented premises even after the term’s completion

  6. Conducting illegal/ criminal activities in rented premises

  7. Deliberate violation of clauses mentioned in the rental agreement

First up, try to speak with your tenants and sort out things with some minor compromises, if required. Give them a chance to vacate the rented premises before you file a case or take any further measures. But if this doesn’t work out well, proceed to get legal help.

Some Judgments

Suhas H Pophale vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.& Anr on 11 February 2014: In Ashoka Marketing (supra), this Court was concerned with the premises of two Nationalised Banks and the Life Insurance Corporation. As far as Life Insurance Corporation is concerned, the life insurance business was nationalized under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. Therefore, as far as the premises of LIC are concerned, they will come under the ambit of the Public Premises Act from 16.9.1958, i.e the date from which the Act is brought into force. As far as Nationalised Banks are concerned, their nationalization is governed by The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and therefore, the application of the Public Premises Act to the premises of the Nationalised Banks will be from the particular date in the year 1970 or thereafter. For any premises to become public premises, the relevant date will be 16.9.1958 or whichever is the later date on which the concerned premises become the public premises as belonging to or taken on lease by LIC or the Nationalised Banks or the concerned General Insurance Companies like the first respondent. All those persons falling within the definition of a tenant occupying the premises prior thereto will not come under the ambit of the Public Premises Act and cannot, therefore, be said to be persons in “unauthorized occupationâ€. Whatever rights such as prior tenants, members of their families, or heirs of such tenants or deemed tenants or all of those who fall within the definition of a tenant under the Bombay Rent Act have, are continued under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. If possession of their premises is required, that will have to be resorted to by taking steps under the Bombay Rent Act or Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. If a person concerned has come in occupation subsequent to such date, then, of course, the Public Premises Act, 1971 will apply. This Court has noted in Banatwala and Co. Vs. LIC reported in 2011 (13) SCC 446 that the Public Premises Act, 1971 is concerned with the eviction of unauthorized occupants and recovery of arrears of rent or damages for such unauthorised occupation, and incidental matters specified under the act. As far as the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is concerned, this Court noted in paragraph 25 of that judgment that as per the preamble of the said Act, it is an Act relating to five subjects, namely (i) control of rent, (ii) repairs of certain premises, (iii) eviction, (iv) encouraging the construction of new houses by assuring the fair return of investment by the landlord, and (v) matters connected with the purposes mentioned above. In that matter, the Court was concerned with the issue of fixation of standard rent and restoration and maintenance of essential supplies and services by the landlord. It was held that these two subjects were not covered under the Public Premises Act, and in fact were covered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Operative para 99(c) of the judgment therefore specifically held as follows:-

As far as the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises is concerned, undoubtedly it is covered under the Public Premises Act, but it is so covered from 16.9.1958, or from the later date when the concerned premises become public premises by virtue of the concerned premises vesting into a Government company or a corporation like LIC or the Nationalised Banks or the General Insurance Companies like the respondent no.1. Thus there are two categories of occupants of these public corporations who get excluded from the coverage of the Act itself. Firstly, those who are in occupation since prior to 16.9.1958, i.e. prior to the Act becoming applicable, are clearly outside the coverage of the Act. Secondly, those who come in occupation, thereafter, but prior to the date of the concerned premises belonging to a Government Corporation or a Company, and are covered under a protective provision of the State Rent Act, like the appellant herein, also get excluded. Until such date, the Bombay Rent Act and its successor Maharashtra Rent Control Act will continue to govern the relationship between the occupants of such premises on the one hand, and such government companies and corporations on the other. Hence, with respect to such occupants, it will not be open to such companies or corporations to issue notices and to proceed against such occupants under the Public Premises Act, and such proceedings will be void and illegal. Similarly, it will be open for such occupants of these premises to seek a declaration of their status, and other rights such as the transmission of the tenancy to the legal heirs, etc. under the Bombay Rent Act or its successor Maharashtra Rent Control Act, and also to seek protective reliefs in the nature of injunctions against unjustified actions or orders of eviction if so passed, by approaching the forum provided under the State Act which alone will have the jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings. Learned senior counsel for the respondents Mr. Raval submitted that the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Ashoka Marketing had clarified the legal position with respect to the relationship between the Public Premises Act and the Rent Control Act. However, as noted above, the issue concerning the retrospective application of the Public Premises Act was not placed for the consideration of the Court, and naturally, it has not gone into it. It was submitted by Mr. Raval that for maintenance of judicial discipline this bench ought to refer the issue involved in the present matter to a bench of three Judges, and thereafter that bench should refer it to a bench of five Judges. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradip Chandra Parija Vs. Pramod Chandra reported in 2002 (1) SCC 1 on this behalf. He also referred to a judgment of this Court in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija Vs. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra, and Ors. reported in 1989 (3) SCC 396 and particularly paragraph 18 thereof for that purpose. What is, however, material to note is that this paragraph also permits discretion to be exercised when there is no declared position in law. The Bombay Rent Act exempted from its application only the premises belonging to the government or local authority. The premises belonging to the Government Companies or Statutory Corporations were however covered under the Bombay Rent Act. This position was altered from 16.9.1958 when the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1958 came into force which applied thereafter to the Government Companies and Statutory Corporations, and that position has been reiterated under the Public Premises Act of 1971 which replaced the 1958 Act. Under these Acts of 1958 and 1971, the Premises belonging to the Government Companies or Statutory Corporations are declared to be Public Premises. Thus, the Parliament took away these premises from the coverage of the Bombay Rent Act under Article 254(1) of the Constitution of chhotikhatu, nagaur. This was, however, in the matter of the subjects covered under the Public Premises Act, viz. eviction of unauthorized occupants and recovery of arrears of rent, etc. as stated above. Thereafter, if the State Legislature wanted to cover these subjects viz. a viz. the premises of the Government Companies and Public Corporations under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, it had to specifically state that notwithstanding anything in the Public Premises Act of 1971, the Government Companies and Public Corporations would be covered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. If that was so done, and if the President was to give assent to such legislation, then the Government Companies and Public Corporation would have continued to be covered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in view of the provision of Article 254(2). That has not happened. Thus, the Government Companies and Public Corporations are taken out of the coverage of the Bombay Rent Act, and they are covered under Public Premises Act, 1971, though from the date specified therein i.e. 16.9.1958. After that date, the Government Companies and Public Corporations will be entitled to claim the application of the Public Premises Act, 1971 (and not of the Bombay Rent Act or its successor Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999), but from the date on which premises belong to these companies or corporations and with respect to the subjects specified under the Public Premises Act. In that also the public companies and corporations are expected to follow the earlier mentioned guidelines.

Why hire a lawyer through Lawtendo?

Lawtendo has the best lawyer for such cases and also the best lawyer for insurance disputes who can aid you to acquire and recover your damages peacefully and legally. If you are looking for lawyers in chhotikhatu, nagaur in this field, Lawtendo happens to know the best and can help you connect with one.

  • Landlord And Tenant Lawyer in Achina
    •
  • Landlord And Tenant Lawyer in Agoonta
    •
  • Landlord And Tenant Lawyer in Ajawa
    •
  • Landlord And Tenant Lawyer in Akala Hamiran
    •
  • Landlord And Tenant Lawyer in Akeli A
    •
  • Landlord And Tenant Lawyer in Akeli B
    •
    View More as per your locality

    Reviews

    Average Rating (2.1) - 142 reviews

    Lawyer Services Lawtendo Price Range: 500 to 5000 ₹ 9671633666 25 Kembrose Estate, Off, LBS Marg, Bhandup, Sadan wadi, Bhandup West, Mumbai, Maharashtra
    2.1 out of 5 stars - 142 Reviews