Skip to main content

Court provides relief to old tenants paying paltry rent


The Delhi High Court has said that banks can’t evict a tenant using the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), a law that allows lending firms to auction properties when borrowers fail to repay loans.

The ruling is crucial at a time when cases are piling up in courts in Delhi where tenants allege that house owners are misusing the 2002 Act to circumvent the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to evict old tenants who are occupying prime properties but pay paltry rent in areas such as Connaught Place, Gol Market, Daryaganj and Chandni Chowk. The Rent Control Act provides protection to tenants who are paying less than R3,500 from eviction.

“Right of a tenant protected by the Rent Act cannot be defeated and SARFAESI Act cannot be used for eviction,” a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sanjeev Sachdeva said, giving relief to one Pradeep Chugh, a tenant evicted by State Bank of India. Chugh was paying R900 as rent for a house in Inderpuri.

The argument and objection raised by the tenants advocate was based on his allegation that SARFAESI is being increasingly used by property owners to get their old tenants evicted with the help of banks. Owners take a loan by mortgaging property documents and deliberately default on payment. The bank then takes over the mortgaged property and evicts the tenant using the SARFAESI Act. When the property is put on auction, the original owner itself buys the property by putting up a dummy.

Article referred to: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Court-provides-relief-to-old-tenants-paying-paltry-rent/Article1-1062778.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more