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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more