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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more