Rent Act

29 October, 2018

 

Rent Act - Bona fide need – Remand  - Tribunal dismissed eviction petition holding that ap-pellant's need can be accomplished with an alternative space available with her in the city - Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Rent Tribunal - High Court  set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal - Need to remand the case to the Rent Appellant Tribunal has occasioned because the High Court, while allowing the respondent's writ petition and setting aside the order of the Appellate tribunal, came to a conclusion and accordingly held  that the Rent Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant's (landlady's) appeal with a casual approach and failed to record any categorical finding on the plea of bona fide need - Having held that, the High Court had two options: first either to remand the case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law and second, to decide the matter itself on merits in accordance with law -  Since the High Court heard the matter in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it was not possible to examine the issue on facts in detail like an Appellate Court -  High Court ought to have resorted to first option and remanded the case back to the Rent Appellate Tribunal, and therefore, committed an error in not taking recourse to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case on its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal - Caused prejudice because there was no factual finding recorded either by the first appellate Court or the High Court on the question of bona fide need -  Rajasthan Rent Control Act, Section 9. (2018)2 SCeJ 1572


Rent Act; Leave to defend not filed within 15 days;

(2018-4)192  *PUNJAB LAW REPORTER*  409

Once legislature has created an obligation upon tenant to apply for leave to contest within a period of Fifteen days from the date of service - Filing of written statement and the same being taken on record by the Rent Controller – When there is no provision for extending time qua leave to contest – Application for leave to contest rightly declined.

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 

Call 9463598502 for subscription

------------

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13 - Eviction – Non-payment of outstanding rent -  The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent tenant  was referred to submit that the arrears of rent from 01.04.1993 to 31.08.2009 was paid only on 24.09.2009 which would amount to non-payment of rent which is a ground for eviction -  Rent Controller has held that the arrears of rent were paid for three years prior to the filing of the eviction petition - Appellant did not assail the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No.1 pertaining to default in payment of rent before the first appellate court  - Cannot permit the Appellant to make submissions for payment of default of arrears of rent at this stage – Order upheld.

(2018)2 SCeJ 1451  

*Punjab Law Reporter* - *Supreme Court e@journal*

18 September, 2018

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Section 13 - Eviction – Ground of change of user - Plea that the premises which was let out for saw mill is now being utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of grills which amount to change of user – Rejected-  Agreement shows that there was no restriction on respondent-tenant to run business only relating to saw mill -  Tenant was given the liberty to carry on any other business as well -  In the absence of any negative covenant the user does not amount to user for the purpose other than for which the premises was leased.

(2018)2 SCeJ 1451

Punjab Law Reporter

Supreme Court e@journal

 

18 September, 2018


  • Rent act – Eviction on basis of compromise - 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 - The eviction in terms of the provisions of the Act can be ordered only if the concerned Rent Controller or Court is satisfied that the ground seeking eviction is made out - It has been held by this Court that unless and until ground seeking eviction in terms of the concerned contract is not made out, no eviction of a tenant can be ordered, even if the parties had entered into a compromise(2018)2 SCeJ 1346

 

 

  • 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

 

 

 plr - supreme court e@journal

4/5 updates a week of the latest Supreme Court Judgements (Full Text with headnotes) delivered to your email and your mobile. Take our 1 month trial pack.

Rs. 1000/- per annum

WhatsApp / Email / App

 

https://www.plronline.in/subscribe/


Rent Act –  Bonafide requirement – Mere fact that father is in ownership  of adjoining property would not make the plea of bona fide personal necessity of son untenable because as long as  father is alive son has no right in self acquired property of his father.

 

(2018) 3 Punjab Law Reporter 


Rent Act –  Bonafide requirement –  Father has sought to settle his son in the business shows the wish of a father to adjust his son in the business during his life time - If a person living in India can carry on business in foreign country, son of petitioner can also run and look after his business even if he chooses to live abroad - Modern techniques enable a person to keep watch and run his business smoothly and successfully from a remote place.

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (III of 1949) Section 13(3)(a)(i)

 

(2018) 3 Punjab Law Reporter 


Rent Act - Eviction – Non-residential building – True that tenant may find it hard to re-settle, but the same is not a ground to deny relief in favour of  the landlord.

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (II of 1973) Section 13(3)(a)(i)

(2018) 3 Punjab Law Reporter