Tenant have to pay rent even after an Order of Eviction – SC
D.D- FEBRUARY 22, 2022.
Apex Court observed in the recent judgement that a tenant is compelled by law to pay his landlord an amount equal to the rent. The tenant must pay this amount even after an Order of Eviction has been passed against him or when he challenges the Order. If a tenant falls in arrears of rent and an Order of Eviction is passed, he must deposit the amount for the period of default. He must also continue to make payments month-by-month during the pendency of the Appeal or other proceeding by him.
Appellant was tenant of non-residential property since 1975 for a monthly rent of Rs.847/- . Respondent filed suit for eviction and mense profit. Trial court decreed the suit and ordered eviction. Appellant filed first appeal but same was dismissed. Aggrieved appellant filed a Second Appeal. An interim order against eviction was passed of stay from eviction. Thereafter the respondent filed an application for Appropriate Directions as Reply to the application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC. The court directed on 25.04.2016, the Rent Control Authority to submit a report regarding the prevailing market rate of accommodation. On 16.09.2016 the Second Appeal came to be admitted. High Court while allowing the application filed by appellants under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and applications for an appropriate direction to the appellants to pay mesne profits along with the regular monthly rent and damages filed by respondent, directed that the appellants shall pay the rent of suit shops at the rate of Rs.18000/- per month to the respondent from the date of decree passed by the lower Appellate Court till the disposal of the Second Appeals. The appellants were directed to pay the entire arrears of rent within a period of 2 months failing which the interim order of protection from eviction under the decree was to stand vacated. Aggrieved appellants approached Apex court.
Apex Court observed that Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 contemplates an increased standard rent in case of a non-residential accommodation. The Act contemplated payment of rent in the manner provided in the Act. If he fails to deposit the amount, the Appeal or proceeding launched by the tenant, would be imperiled.
Apex court stated that “We are unable to accept the appellants case that Section 13 of the Act, being a special law, cannot be exercised to direct deposit or payment of mesne profits. Compliance with Section 13 does not, as found by us, amount to a stay of the Decree for Eviction.”.
Apex Court allowed appeal partly and modified the amount at the rate of Rs.10,000/- and granted five weeks to deposit the entire amount.
HEERA TRADERS
VERSUS
KAMLA JAIN
