Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Saturday, 08 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-01-29 allowed

Harbans Kaur vs Iqbal Singh & Anr

Bench: 2 — Ashok Bhushan

In Brief

A landlord let out shop premises in 1995 at Rs. 8,500/month with a 10% annual increase clause. By 2003, rent reached Rs. 16,564/month. The Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (effective April 1, 2003) prescribes a 7.5% annual increase for existing tenancies. When the landlord demanded arrears from August 2003, the tenant deposited rent at Rs. 13,600/month (applying the statutory rate retrospectively). The Supreme Court held that agreed rent continues unless the landlord invokes statutory revision procedures. The tenant cannot unilaterally recalculate and reduce rent. The landlord's failure to demand the contractual 10% increase did not breach the Act. The tenant defaulted by paying less than the legally demanded amount, making eviction grounds available.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Rent Control Tenant and Landlord Eviction Rental Agreements Statutory Interpretation

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login