Rent Act - Limitation Act, Section 5  - Compromise - It is true that there was a delay of 604 days in filing the appeal, but in cases where there is reasonable doubt that police may have forced a party to enter into compromise, the process of Court ought to weigh in favour of a party who alleges to be victim of such pressure - Compromise recorded in Police Station inter alia  not found to be acceptable by this Court and the matter remanded - Compromise was brought about on even before the eviction petition was filed by the respondent - Further, said compromise was addressed to the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch -  The appellate court had observed that complaint and compromise were not disputed by the respondent and no document in rebuttal was filed - The complaint proceeds on a premise that the lease deed was a forged document and there was no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties - Yet an eviction petition was filed, seeking eviction of the appellants under the concerned Rent Act - There is an inherent contradiction in the stand adopted by the Respondent - In the circumstances, the assertion made by the appellants that pressure was exerted through the police and they were compelled to enter into compromise is prima facie acceptable.(2018)2 SCeJ 1346

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.