SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Tenant have to pay rent even after an Order of Eviction – SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

D.D- FEBRUARY 22, 2022.

HEERA TRADERS VERSUS KAMLA JAIN 

Latest Legal News