Skip to main content

Eviction even after comprise not allowed where Rent Act applicable

In M/S Alagu Pharmacy vs N Magudeswari, the appellants doing business in the name and style of M/s Alagu Pharmacy claim to be tenants in the suit property owned by the respondent herein since 1998 and around 2012 a lease agreement was entered between extending/renewing the period of lease. The respondent had issued legal notices calling upon the appellants to vacate the suit property alleging inter alia that the lease agreement was a forged document. After hearing the appellants, an ad interim injunction was granted by the District Munsif, Coimbatore. Subsequently an eviction order was issued by the Rent Controller against a compromise deed presented wherein apparently a compromise has been entered into between the appellant and the respondent. The said deed which was resisted by the appellant before the appellate court claiming the same was signed by them under pressure from the respondents and the local police. The said court found favour with the appellants whence the respondents went to High Court which ordered in their favour,  the  appellants then finally reached Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court referring to various judgments including Ajad Singh v. Chatra and Others,  K.K. Chari v. R.M. Seshadr, Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass,  Kaushalya Devi v. Shri K.L. Bansal, Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal and  Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, decided that the order passed by the appellate court was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference on part of the High Court. The common thread that runs through the aforesaid pronouncements of this Court is – in cases where protection under a Rent Act is available, no eviction can be ordered unless ground seeking eviction is made out, even if parties had entered into a compromise. Moreover, the invalidity on that count can even be raised in execution. In the present case, the order dated 28.03.2014 did not remotely note that any particular ground under the Rent Act was made out.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

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