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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
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