royalsepat

I have a query.
I have been staying in a rented accomodation for past 1 year and i had a rent lease agreement with my landlord with regular clause of 10% increase in rent.


Close to expiry of the contract, we had a verbal discussion about renewing the contract for another 11 months with the agreed upon new rent. But before the new agreement could be made all of a sudden, he told me that the lease can't be renewed and he wants me to move since he needs the accomodation now.


Here my questions are:
1. Notice Period : My lease agreement is silent on the quantum of notice period so what legally is my notice period before which landlord cant ask me to move out.
2. Will this legality of notice period holds wherein the lease agreement has expired and a new one wasn't made.


Would be thankful if someone can shed light on these aspect.

AJAY_GGN

In My rent agreement we have a clause that either party can give one months notice period to get the house vacated. I hope that is the norm followed everywhere.

My lease also got expired last month and renewed it again with 10% rent increase.

Munish Malhautra

One month notice is the minimum that the landlord has to provide u unless otherwise specified on the lease contract.

__________________
MM

MANOJa

These r extracts of an very old article ( 2004 ), but still looks good & might be helpful . As, MM Bhai, said u should be able to get month's notice from the Landlord, unless otherwise specified on the lease contract.


The various grounds on which the statute enables eviction are as follows:

1. Where the tenant has not paid the stipulated rent for more than 15 days after the rent fell due, and such non-payment is wilful.

2. Where the tenant has, without the landlord's written consent, allowed some other person to occupy the premises, either wholly or in part.

3. Where the tenant has put the building to a use other than that which the landlord had originally agreed. The term "use" must be reckoned with reference to the lease deed.

4. Where the tenant has done any act, which has materially impaired the building or its value or utility.

5. Where the tenant has used the building, or has allowed the building to be used, for illegal purposes or immoral purposes.

6. Where the tenant is making such a nuisance of himself that his continuance is objectionable either to other tenants of the same building or other persons in the neighbourhood.

7. Where the tenant has not occupied the premises in question for a period in excess of four months. (This rule does not apply in hill stations for obvious reasons.)

8. Where the tenant denies the landlord's title to the building itself, and such denial is not well founded. I only wish to add that once a tenant commences tenancy under a particular person as a landlord, the law does not allow the tenant to thereafter disown the landlord, or to assert title to the building in anyone else (save for one exception, which is not relevant here).

9. Where the landlord genuinely requires the building either for his residential or non-residential occupation, or for the residential or non-residential occupation of any member of his family. Where the landlord (or the person for whom he is seeking eviction of the premises) already owns and occupies another premises in the same town, the landlord must additionally be in a position to state and prove that the hardship that will be caused to him by not giving him the premises will outweigh the hardship caused to the tenant by throwing the tenant out of the premises. This clause is subject to a few exceptions, but these are beyond the scope of this summary.

10. Where the landlord genuinely requires the building for effecting repairs, which cannot be carried out unless the building is vacated. Please note that once the repairs are carried out, the tenant will be entitled to re-enter the premises.

11. Where the landlord genuinely requires the building for the purpose of immediately demolishing it and putting up a new building in its place.

There are a few other grounds of eviction mentioned in the statute such as those involving members of the armed forces or where the government is the tenant. These again, are beyond the scope of what is an attempt to put the primary sections of the statute in a nutshell.

If you, as a landlord, are able to fit your requirements for eviction into one of these categories, you will be entitled to file a petition for eviction before a court called the Rent Controller's Court.

By the same token, if you as a tenant, are being threatened with eviction, you can resist any attempt at eviction other than one falling within one of the above categories.

suryawork

You are not a tenant as you've been leased and not rented the apartment for 11 months . So , no question of renter/tenant laws being applied .
Lease agreements usually have a one month notice period . If the lease priod has expired then the owner is not bound to give you a one month notice period ; its more of goodwill and being practical that you need some time to move to a different house .
Put yourself in the place of the owner . If the owner wants to live in the house or doesnt want to renew the lease for some other reason then he has full right to do so , after all its his house .

MANOJa

suryawork, whatever one may say, most laws r favoring the tenant & it is really difficult to make him vacate the premises, most of the times .

sanaryamni

no tenancy can be invoked in this case. the lease is over - you are out.

manishag

i am staying in rented house since last 2 years. my lease was renewed last year with increasing the rent by 10% though the renewal and increase in the rent was verbal there was no written communication also there was no new lease/rent agreement. this year i got call from dealer to increase the rent by 25% and he is giving the reason that this is a rule that after every 2 years rent needs to be set as per the market rate. I am not able to contact Landlord. in fact i never talked to landlord ever since i rented this premises. i just transfer rent to his bank account every month. I am planning to stay this premises till i get the possession of my flat which is more likely end of 2013 so almost 2 more years.
i am staying in Delhi
and suggestion of advice for the same??

MANOJa

NINE families living in an 83-year-old building off Princess Street face imminent danger in the dilapidated structure that the trust owning the building has refused to repair, the Bombay High Court was told on Tuesday.

Jehangir Gai, a resident of the building, moved court against the H B Wadia Fire Temple Charity Trust and the Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (MHADA) for not undertaking the reconstruction of the building despite a structural engineer’s report in 2007 that said the building needed to be repaired within six months.

Gai’s petition stated that the building was constructed in 1928 by the trust and had faced no problem for the first 50 years. However, over the past 30 years, no repair or maintenance work was carried out by the trust and as a result there were major cracks on the building walls and heavy leakage during monsoon, the petitioner contended. “The foundation of the building has sunk,” Gai’s lawyer Hutoxi Tavadia told the court. The tenants contended that repairs would not serve the purpose as the structure is in need of reconstruction.

The petition stated that a pre-monsoon survey conducted by MHADA’s structural engineer in 2007 estimated the cost of repair at Rs 30 lakh for the 879.96 sq m property.

Gai stated that based on the area and cess paid to MHADA, Rs 17.6 crore was available to the tenants seeking reconstruction of the building. However, Gai’s petition stated that the trust, the landlord in the case, refused to pay even a part of the expenses.

The trust also wrote to the tenants stating it would be difficult for them to obtain a commencement certificate for the reconstruction work.

Gai, through his petition, urged the court to direct the trust to grant a no-objection certificate for the reconstruction of the building.

Justice S A Bobde and Justice R D Dhanuka have asked an architect from the court’s panel to be appointed to conduct a survey of the building and adjourned the case till March 27.




Tenants move court against trust for not redeveloping building