Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Monday, 10 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-08-09 allowed

Popat & Kotecha Property & Ors vs Ashim Kumar Dey

Bench: 3 — Ranjan Gogoi

In Brief

A landlord sought to evict a tenant for non-payment of municipal taxes. The tenant had been paying contractual rent but refused to pay his apportioned share of municipal taxes. The High Court dismissed eviction, reasoning that municipal tax enhancement required a formal Rent Controller order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the 1997 Amendment Act imposed a statutory obligation on tenants, as occupiers, to pay their share of municipal taxes independently from rent. This statutory obligation does not require formal rent-enhancement procedures. The landlord may apportion taxes among multiple tenants and enforce payment. Default in paying apportioned taxes constitutes grounds for eviction without needing a Rent Controller's order of enhancement."

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

Tenancy Law Municipal Tax Rent and Eviction Statutory Obligation

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