Whether will be effect of dismissal of standard rent application for want of prosecution?

It appears to us that where a tenant does not prosecute an application for fixation of standard rent and deliberately permits it to be dismissed for non-prosecution it could be reasonably inferred that it was not a bona fide application at all. In the case before us, it being admitted that the agreed rent was Rs. 30/- p. m., that would be the "standard rent" as defined by Section 5(10) of the Act. That was the rate at which rent was payable. Non-prosecution of the application for standard rent indicated that there was no real dispute regarding the standard rent or permitted increases. In such cases, if the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) are not shown to be complied with the Court is bound to pass a decree for eviction.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 217 of 1976

Decided On: 14.04.1977

Mistry Premjibhai Vithaldas Vs. Ganeshbhai Keshavji

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Hameedullah Beg, C.J., A.C. Gupta and P.S. Kailasam, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1977 SC 1707

Print Page

Whether dismissal of earlier application for grant of maintenance will bar subsequent application?

In view of the above submissions, the short question that arises for consideration is, whether the dismissal of the earlier claim for maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. would bar a subsequent claim for maintenance allowance under the same provision. Indisputably, the right to claim maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a recurring statutory claim. In the case of recurring claims, the principles of res judicata or estoppel has no application at all on a fresh cause of action or changed circumstances. In this analysis, I hold that the dismissal of the earlier M.C. on the evidence of payment of maintenance allowance at that time could not bar a subsequent claim on change of circumstances which would give rise to a fresh cause of action. 

Kerala High Court

 Saneera Vs ABDURAHIMAN,

Dated:1ST DAY OF JUNE 2015

  RPFC.No. 170 of 2015 

Print Page

Whether dismissal of earlier claim for maintenance U/S 125 of CRPC would bar subsequent claim ?

 In view of the above submissions, the short

question that arises for consideration is, whether the

dismissal of the earlier claim for maintenance

allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. would bar a

subsequent claim for maintenance allowance under the

same provision.        Indisputably, the right to claim

maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

is a recurring statutory claim. In the case of recurring

claims, the principles of res judicata or estoppel has

no application at all on a fresh cause of action or

changed circumstances. In this analysis, I hold that

the dismissal of the earlier M.C. on the evidence of

payment of maintenance allowance at that time could

not bar a subsequent claim on change of circumstances

which would give rise to a fresh cause of action. The

living standard/status of the wife and children which

spell out their ability to maintain themselves and the


means of the husband are the factors, which would

determine the entitlement of maintenance allowance

and the quantum of amount under Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C. and these factors are always fluctuating in

accordance with the change of circumstances. Needless

to say, change of circumstances will give rise to a

fresh cause of action. More over, being a claim under

social       welfare     legislation, the right to  claim

maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has to be

construed in view of the object of the said provision,

i.e., prevention of vagrancy and destitution. Besides,

the above view further gets assurance from Section 127

of the Cr.P.C., which recognises alteration of the

quantum         of   allowances   on  proof of change  in

circumstances.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

                MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

         1ST DAY OF JUNE 2015

                      RPFC.No. 170 of 2015 

              SANEERA,
Vs

             ABDURAHIMAN, 

Print Page