Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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