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

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more