CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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