Skip to main content

Rent : Compromise once acted upon cannot be nullfied

In Km. Anshu Jain And Others vs Suresh Prakash Garg And Others, a compromise was reached between the landlord/respondents and the father of the appellant wherein he was allowed to occupy a portion of a property during his lifetime for a fixed rent. On his death, his heirs challenged the eviction claiming the requirement of the landlord not being bonafide and sought to nullify the compromise settlement. The appeal was filed before the Allahabad High Court after the contention of the tenants have been rejected by the small causes court.

The HC observed that there is no quarrel with the law that 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 and that the invalidity on that count can even be raised in execution. However, as mentioned in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Raghunath Prasad Pande vs. State of Karnataka and others 2018 (5) SCC 594 and in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another 2013 (5) SCC 470, once the compromise decree has been acted upon, a party cannot be permitted to go back from the same and the same is not liable to be set aside.

Where a person knowingly accepts the benefit of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself. This rule is applied to ensure equity. 

Clearly it is not a case where the original tenant is coming forward with a case that some fraud was played upon him and the compromise is contrary to statutory provisions. On the other hand, the terms of the compromise further indicate that the compromise was, in fact, executed at the cost of the landlord carving out a new shop out of a larger shop and handing over the same to the original tenant and by incurring loss towards rent as well as, the rent of the tenant was continued to be Rs. 18/- per month during lifetime of the original tenant Raj Bahadur Jain. In other words, the compromise was continuously acted upon by the parties. Thus, now the legal heirs cannot come forward and say that they are the statutory tenant and this compromise was nullity as they were not a party or that it is contrary to law.

In such view of the matter, there is no good ground to interfere in the orders impugned herein in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constition of India.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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