Can the court refuse to grant an eviction decree to the landlord on the grounds of bonafide need if one landlord claims a rent increase?

 The learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have passed an order of eviction finding bonafide requirement of the landlord. The demand of increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises by the appellant.

We find that even if a notice is served upon by a landlord to increase the rent, that notice has nothing to do with the bonafide requirement as the landlord is statutorily prohibited from increasing the rent in respect of the tenanted premises in terms of Section 6 of the Act. The demand of rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible in terms of Section 6 of the Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5539-5540 OF 2022 

 SURINDER SINGH DHILLON & ORS. Vs VIMAL JINDAL

Coram: HEMANT GUPTA; J., J.B. PARDIWALA; J. 

Dated: AUGUST 22, 2022

Print Page

whether failure to pay rent amounts to criminal offence?

 We are of the opinion that no criminal offence is made out, even if we accept the factual assertions made in the complaint, which was registered as the First Information Report. Failure to pay rent may have civil consequences, but is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). Mandatory legal requirements for the offence of cheating under Section 415 and that of misappropriation under Section 403 IPC are missing.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2022

NEETU SINGH & ORS. Vs STATE  OF U.P.

CORAM:SANJIV KHANNA; BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ. 

DATED: MARCH 07,2022 

Print Page

Whether court can treat conducting agreement as a leave and license agreement if the word rent is used in said agreement?

 In line with the law laid down, it is clear that the contract mandated continuation of the business in the name of ‘Karandikar Brothers’ by paying royalties of Rs. 90 per month. Once the parties have accepted the recitals and the contract, the respondent could not have adduced contrary extrinsic parole evidence, unless he portrayed ambiguity in the language. It may not be out of context to  note that the extension of the contract was on same conditions. {Para 16}

17. On consideration of the matter, the High Court erred in

appreciating the ambit of Section 95, which led to consideration of

evidence which only indicates breach rather than ambiguity in the

language of contract. The evidence also points that the license was

created for continuation of existing business, rather than

license/lease of shop premises. If the meaning provided by the High Court is accepted, then it would amount to Courts substituting the bargain by the parties. The counsel for respondent has emphasized much on the receipt of payment, which mentions the term ‘rent received’. However, in line with the clear unambiguous language of the contract, such evidence cannot be considered in the eyes of law.

REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10827 of 2010

Mangala Waman Karandikar (D) TR. LRS. Vs  Prakash Damodar Ranade 

N.V. RAMANA, CJI

Dated:  MAY 07, 2021

Print Page

Whether the court should direct obstructionist to pay compensation or rent to the landlord during pendency of obstructionist proceeding?

Usually, the appellate court, or sometimes the executing court, requires the tenant to pay compensation pending the appeal on the execution so that the appealed decree could be stayed. Lest the tenant should face a summary eviction. Here, the obstruction proceedings are deemed original proceedings. Had the Obstructor failed in those proceedings, in the appeal he would have been compelled to pay the compensation. True, here, he did fail. But now that judgment stands set aside, and the matter remanded. So, the parties have been relegated to their original position. Therefore, we cannot compel the Objector to pay compensation.{Para 66 }

Pending the original proceedings, which the obstruction proceedings are, the tenant or the occupier should pay only the admitted rent or license fee. Here, the Owner maintains that he has no privity of contract with the Obstructor. On the contrary, the Obstructor asserts that the consent terms, which had the judicial imprimatur, recognised him as an occupant.

69. The Obstructor has pleaded that he had been paying the rent to the tenant. But the fact remains that the tenant has defaulted in paying rent to the Owner. At least, until the High Court decides the eviction proceedings that is the judicial finding. When this Court wanted the tenant to pay the compensation or mesne profits as a condition-precedent for staying the decree of eviction, the Tenant remained unresponsive. That has paved the way for eviction proceedings. In this situation, the Obstructor cannot be heard saying that he has no obligation to pay rent to the Owner, for he cannot have the cake and eat it, too.

70. Therefore, it serves the interest of justice if the Obstructor pays to the Owner the admitted rent, regularly. As to the arrears if any, the Obstructor should pay the accumulated arrears from the date of obstruction proceedings. The arrears must be paid in three months from the date of first hearing before the Executing Court after the remand. If the Obstructor fails to pay the arrears or defaults on paying the regular rent, the owner may apply to the Executing Court to strike off the Obstructor's plea or defence. I also clarify that the Obstructor's paying the rent and the Owner's receiving that is without prejudice to their rival contentions in the proceedings. Otherwise, the impugned Order, dt. 28.02.2018 remains unaffected.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition Nos. 5341 and 5342 of 2018

Decided On: 27.04.2020

 Udyavara R. Acharya and Ors.Vs. Jugal Kishor Jagannath Sharda Zenith Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0539/2020

Print Page

Whether the right of the landlord to get rent accrued during the pendency of the first suit will be barred by res judicata if the landlord fails to claim said rent by amending plaint?

 (g) Rent and Recurring Cause of Action:

48. The Corporation and the Firm maintain that the Owner's claim has been barred by res judicata. I reckon what applies, if ever, here is Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC. And the provision reads:

2. Suit to include the whole claim.--(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish and portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.

(2) Relinquishment of part of claim.--Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs.--A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.

49. The illustration exemplifies what amounts to relinquishment of part of claim. A lets a house to B at a yearly rent of Rs. 1,200. The rent for the whole of the years 1905, 1906 and 1907 is due and unpaid. A sues B in 1908 only for the rent due for 1906. He shall not afterwards sue B for the rent due for 1905 or 1907.

50. That is, the suit was in 1908. A's cause of action got crystalised on the date of his filing the suit. His right was to recover the rent arrears accumulated by then--for 1905, 1906, and 1907. The cause for his action was the B's default. The default was up to the date of his going to the Court, until the end of 1907. In the illustration, by the time A filed the suit, the rent for 1906 and 1907 was also due. Yet A did not seek to recover what he had been entitled to by then. The rent for 1906 and 1907, I may stress, was not the rent accumulated pending the suit.

51. In other words, A's suit in 1908 must have included the whole claim which A was entitled to make by then. But A sued for the rent of only 1906. In that suit, as A did not seek the rent for 1905 and 1907, it amounted to his relinquishing that portion of the claim. Law treats that as an intentional relinquishment. So, he shall not afterwards sue for that relinquished or omitted portion. The reckoning point, I must say, is the date of suit filing.

52. Looked from another angle, in the illustration, we may note that the suit was filed in 1908, but the rent for that year was not included because it was not due by then. That means a future arrear cannot provide cause of action. What should happen to the rent of 1908?

53. We cannot presume that a suit gets decided there and then. It runs its course; in the meanwhile, many years may pass. Let us assume that the case in the illustration took six years to conclude, after running its course through appellate and revisional channels. So it ended in 1914. If we accept the Corporation's argument, then every year or at least intermittently the owner should have amended his pleadings and kept adding the rent for the years passing by until the suit ended. This method adopted, the court fee gets paid whenever there is an amendment and, eventually, the arrears adding up, even the pecuniary jurisdiction may change. So halfway through the trial Court should abandon the case and transmit it to another court. A chimerical concept of procedural law. On the contrary, once the cause of action crystallizes and issues are struck, the parties go to the trial on that basis. Thus, for adjudicatory purposes, the cause of action stands frozen.

54. True, subsequent events may affect the suit outcome. For that, either party to the suit should bring to the court's notice those later developments. For that even the amended Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC provides. Otherwise, the court itself, in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, may take note of those developments. But law does not compel a person to invariably bring on record all the later developments through amendment. If the later developments provide an independent cause of action, the party's right to a fresh legal remedy remains intact. This proposition applies with more rigour if the cause of action is recurring.

55. Indeed, default in rent remittance provides recurring cause of action. Every successive default provides an independent cause of action. Later developments may affect that cause of action if they are duly brought on record; otherwise, they provide further independent cause of action. Even the doctrine of lis pendens does not defeat the suitor's independent right to sue. It is only a matter of prudence and convenience that all the related facts are brought under one umbrella of adjudication. More particularly, if the cause of action is recurring, each instance of recurrence provides an independent cause of action. Here, the first suit--RCS No. 754 of 1977--concerns the rent from 1.4.1973 to 30.4.1977. The second suit--RCS No. 149 of 1998--concerns the later period.

56. I, therefore, conclude that the Owners have not lost their right to sue the Corporation and the Firm merely because the default occurred when another suit was pending. Pithily put, if there is no completed cause of action, there is no right for the party to sue. If the completed cause of action has many aspects or facets, but the party sues only on a few, the rest remain relinquished or abandoned. But on a completed cause of action if a party sues and pending those proceedings, there is, temporally speaking, recurrence of the same cause of action, it provides an independent cause of action. All these rights to sue are subject to one obvious limitation: The Statute of Limitation.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 561 of 2018 and 562 of 2016 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2005 in Regular Civil Suit No. 149 of 1998

Decided On: 27.04.2020

 K.B. Lahoti and Company and Ors. Vs. Champalal Vithuram Jajoo and Ors.

Print Page

Whether a person can claim tenancy in the immovable property if he was depositing rent in the bank account of the landlord?

Re: Remittances to owner's account (Exs. 64, 65 and 66)

20. Exs. 64 to 66 produced by first Respondent show that he had deposited ` 300, ` 60 and ` 360/- on 19.8.1988, 20.11.1991 and 14.3.1989 to the account of first Appellant with Bank of Karad. The case of the Respondents was that when Laxmibai inducted them as tenants of the suit portions on a monthly rent of ` 25/-; that they used to pay rent to Laxmibai; that after her death, they used to pay rent to the first Appellant; that in 1988, the first Appellant compelled them to increase the rent to ` 60/-; that as both the Appellants were living outside Vita, the first Respondent used to deposit rent in the bank account of the first Appellant with Bank of Karad. The first appellate court held the fact that the amounts were deposited to first Appellant's account showed that the Appellants had given the account number to first Respondent and inferred that the said amounts might have been deposited towards rent.

21. Appellants have given satisfactory explanation. They submitted that the bank account was a non-functional and non-operated account at Vita and as no notice of deposit was given, they were unaware of the deposits. They submitted that Bank of Karad went into liquidation and they therefore did not even have any record of these payments. They argued that as the second Respondent was looking after Laxmibai and as Respondents were also looking after the premises, the Respondents would have come to know about the bank account of the first Appellant and that first Respondent, being aware that one day or the other, the owners will take action to evict them, had deposited the said amounts to create some kind of evidence. It should also be noted that the Respondents did not send any communication informing the Appellants about the deposits to the first Appellant. Nor did the challans showed that the deposits were being made towards rent. These factors when coupled with the following three circumstances show that the deposits were not bonafide: (i) There were no rent receipts from either Laxmibai or from the Appellants; (ii) the Respondents did not choose to send the rents by postal money orders; and (iii) there is no explanation as to non-deposit of the alleged rents for the earlier period. These receipts cannot be relied upon to support the uncorroborated oral testimony of DW-1 (Sadhu) that the same were deposited towards rent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 8400-8401 of 2011 

Decided On: 30.09.2011

 Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare  Vs. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty)

Print Page

Supreme Court: Sub-lessee can not claim re-connection of electric supply if he fails to pay lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity charges

We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and we make it clear that we are not deciding this plea on merits. However, we have no doubt in our mind that the sub-lessee cannot claim that no amount is payable by it. It has not paid a single rupee to the Petitioner despite occupying the premises for more than 7 years. We cannot appreciate this conduct of the sub-lessee. In a multi-storeyed building of this nature there has to be provision for security guards, cleaning services, lift operators, parking attendants, etc. When the parties had agreed that Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. per month would be paid in the first year, we can presume that the sub-lessee must have satisfied itself that these are the approximate expenses to be incurred by the Petitioner for maintenance of the building. 

10. It was also urged on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that there were some periods during which the electricity was disconnected and, therefore, it should not be asked to pay any charges for the said period. We are not in agreement with the said submission. The Respondent No. 1 did not pay a single rupee either on account of lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity charges or other charges and in such event, the Petitioner had no option but to disconnect the electricity. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court clearly misdirected itself in directing restoration of the electricity without ensuring payment of some amount to the Petitioner.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21341 of 2019

Decided On: 07.02.2020

 Infinity Infotech Parks Limited  Vs.  Shiva Jute Mills Private Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 262

Print Page

Whether the court can treat property tax as part of rent without consent of the tenant?

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective sides and gone through the relevant provisions of law as well as the case law. I find myself in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the component of property tax payable by the tenant under Section 67 (3) of the NDMC Act, though may be recoverable from the tenant as arrears of rent but it cannot be added to the rent despite the fact that it is to be recovered as arrears of rent so as to take away the protection of the DRC Act unless and until the tenant has either by an agreement in writing or oral has contested to treat such payment of property tax or the differential thereof calculated in terms of Section 67 (1) as a part of rent. Since there is no pleading much less evidence produced in this regard, therefore, all the three appeals are allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

R.F.A. No. 451/2013, 

Decided On: 30.05.2016

 B.M. Sharma  Vs.  Brij Bhushan Sharan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.K. Shali, J.

Citation : AIR 2016 Delhi 193

Print Page

Whether lease deed is to be registered in case of tenancy-at-will even though rent was payable yearly?

 In Mt. Aishan v. Municipal

Committee Lahore 92 Ind.Cas. 526 Campbell

J. held that a mere recital of an annual

rate of rent did not constitute the lease,

a lease reserving a yearly rent within the

meaning of Section 17, Registration Act.

The lease in that case was determinable at

any time at the will of the landlord. In

the present case after the expiry of one

year for which the lease was granted, this

lease too was determinable at the end of

Jeth, Sambat 1985. In this aspect the

present lease constituted no more than a

tenancy-at-will after the expiry of the

first year and so appears to be covered by

the decision of Campbell, J. referred to

above. There is considerable body of

authority for the proposition that where

there is a tenancy-at-will created even

though the rent is fixed and is payable

annually, the document is not subject to

compulsory registration. Reference in this

connection may be made to Muhammad Masam

Khan v. Mt. Bakhtawar (1895) 70 P.R. 1895

where a Division Bench held on a

construction of the document before them

that only those leases must be registered

which are in terms for a period exceeding

one year, a lease reserving a yearly rent,

and containing no other provision

establishing a tenancy-at-will, being

presumably a lease from year to year.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVI L APPEA L NO. 2617 O F 2020

SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. Vs SURINDER SINGH .

Print Page

Whether the court can infer that tenancy was for more than a year if there is a clause of increase of rent every year in rent note?

As per law laid down by this Court in Ram Kumar Das(supra) there shall be a presumption that the tenancy in the

present case is monthly tenancy. When the clauses of

rent note are cumulatively read, the intention of the

tenant is more than clear that tenancy was only

monthly tenancy, which could have been terminated on

default of payment of rent by 5th day of any month or

by notice of one month. The rent deed did not confer

any right to tenant to continue in the tenancy for a

period of more than one year nor it can be said that

tenancy was created for a period of more than one

year. Clause (9), which noticed the promise of the

tenant of payment of rent by increasing 10% each year

was a promise contingent on tenancy being continued

beyond one year but cannot make the tenancy year to

year or tenancy for a period of more than one year.

Present was a case of tenancy for which no period was

specified and looking to all the clauses

cumulatively, we find that the rent note was not such

kind of rent note, which requires compulsory

registration under Section 17(1)(d).

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVI L APPEA L NO. 2617 O F 2020

SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. Vs SURINDER SINGH .

ASHO K BHUSHAN, J.

Dated:June 17, 2020.

Print Page

Whether landlord can claim rent towards lock-in period without pleading that he has sustained loss due to premature vacation of premises?

The reason why I state that the suit as per averments in the plaint itself was not maintainable and should not have been entertained is, that the plaintiff, though pleading breach of contract i.e. Lease Deed and the Maintenance Agreement by the defendant and without pleading any loss from such breach, is seeking relief in the nature of specific performance and which is not permissible in law. The Lease Deed was not specifically enforceable at the instance of the plaintiff as the landlord and on breach of the Lease Deed by the defendant as tenant, by vacating the premises before expiry of the term thereof, the plaintiff was entitled to only damages for breach of contract and the measure of which damages was the loss if any suffered by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff was required to plead such loss and no loss has been pleaded.

11. The position with respect to rent of lock-in period is akin to that of earnest money/security and qua which the Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority MANU/SC/0019/2015 : (2015) 4 SCC 136, followed by me in Speed Track Cargo Vs. State Bank of Patiala MANU/DE/0359/2016, Palm Art Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Enkay Builders Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/3533/2017, Mera Baba Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ram Lubhaya Puri MANU/DE/2199/2018, Klintoz Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ravinder Shankar Mathur MANU/DE/3733/2018, Satish Verma Vs. Garment Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/7859/2017 and Mahendera Verma Vs. Suresh T. Kilachand MANU/DE/2352/2019, held that mere entitlement in the agreement to forfeit is not enough and loss/damages from breach of contract has to be proved. In fact, the matter is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Procall Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/4958/2012 has held that rent of the lock-in period in a Lease Deed cannot be claimed without pleading loss from vacation by the tenant of the property prior to the expiry of the term of lease. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 3032/2014

Decided On: 06.01.2020

 Deepak Chopra  Vs.  Flakt (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

Print Page

How to ascertain when tenant should pay rent to landlord in absence of lease deed?

 The next contention of Learned Counsel for the Defendant was that the rent was payable on demand. Evidently no Lease Deed existed between the parties. The Plaintiff could furnish no document to establish that the rent was payable by the 10th of the succeeding month, similarly the Defendant was not in possession of any document to prove that rent was payable on demand. In the absence of such a document it is relevant to resort to the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter "the TP Act"), which inter alia provides that in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contract, a lease of immovable property shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on the part of either a lesser or lessee by fifteen days" notice. I hasten to add that the Act of 1956 envisages no notice for eviction of a tenant, it merely requires proof of default in rent for four months or more hence Notice is not a mandate under the Act of 1956. Therefore, on applying the provisions of Section 106 of the TP Act it is evident that the tenancy shall be presumed to be a tenancy on a month to month basis. In this view of the matter, irrespective of lack of demand for payment of rent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, it became incumbent upon the Defendant to pay the rent either at the end of the month or by the next month as was the practice, even if it was beyond the 10th of the next month. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM AT GANGTOK

RFA No. 10 of 2016

Decided On: 01.10.2018

 Taramani Devi Agarwal Vs.  Krishna Company

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Meenakshi Madan Rai, Actg. C.J.

Citation: 2019(1) RCR(Rent) 38

Print Page

When deposit of rent would not amount to valid tender of rent?

 No doubt, the respondent is found to have issued a notice marked as Ex. R2 calling upon the petitioners to furnish their bank account particulars with a view to deposit the rent in the said account and however, according to the respondent, inasmuch as the same had not been responded by the petitioners, he was necessitated to deposit the rent in the rent control proceedings.  As rightly put forth by the petitioners' counsel, considering the strained relationship between the parties, the respondent should have been more careful in paying the rent and merely because at one point of time, the petitioners had been collecting the rents in lumpsum that would not give a leverage to the respondent in not paying the rent regularly when it becomes due and also punctually and therefore, as determined by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the respondent having failed to take proper steps to deposit the rent as provided under Section 8 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and particularly, when the petitioners are not posted with the information as to the alleged deposit of the rent by the respondent in the civil suit proceeding and the rent control proceedings with a view to enable the petitioners to withdraw the same, in such view of the matter, the alleged deposit of the rent by the respondent in the abovesaid proceedings would not amount to a valid tender of the rent and the same had been acceded to by the petitioners. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)

C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 709 of 2008

Decided On: 04.01.2019

Ganapathy Murugan  Vs.  Madaswamy

Print Page

Whether tenant is liable to pay rent even if not demanded by landlord?

Even if the petitioners do not demand the payment of the rent, the respondent is statutorily liable to pay the rent and he cannot be allowed to keep quiet on the footing that the petitioners had not demanded the rent from him and unless and until the petitioners demand the rent, he is not liable to pay the same. No doubt, there has been no specific demand from the petitioners to the respondent to pay the rent. But, that by itself would not absolve the liability of the respondent in paying the rent, when it becomes due and when it is seen that even prior to the litigation between the parties, the respondent had been in the arrears of rent, despite the same he having not taken necessary steps as per law to pay the rent to the petitioners, the Appellate Authority is found to be fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent had committed wilful default in the payment of the rent.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)

C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 709 of 2008

Decided On: 04.01.2019

Ganapathy Murugan  Vs.  Madaswamy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T. Ravindran, J.

Citation: 2019(1) RCR(Rent) 346

Print Page

Supreme Court: Rent includes payment in respect of amenities or services provided by landlord

Although the expression 'rent' has not been defined, there are indications in the present Act to suggest that the word 'rent' includes not only what is strictly understood as rent, but also payment in respect of amenities or services provided by the landlord under the terms of the tenancy. The Act deals with the fixation and revision of fair rent and Sub-section (3) of Section 8, takes into account furniture if supplied or fittings affixed in the tenement for the use of the tenant, indicating that an agreement between the landlord and the tenant in respect of the additional amenities comes within the scope of the Act. Similarly the provisions of Section 34 refer to the maintenance of any essential supply or service (including supply of electricity) and Section 35 deals with emergency measures to be taken in respect of matters including additional services. These provisions give a clear indication that the Act contemplates that a tenancy which carries with it certain amenities to be provided or services to be maintained by the landlord is within the purview of the Act. If the Act is not so interpreted, an astute landlord may successfully circumvent the provisions of the Act by imposing on the tenant onerous conditions with reference to supply of amenities as binding terms of the tenancy. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3106 of 1989

Decided On: 20.04.1990

Puspa Sen Gupta  Vs. Susma Ghose

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
L.M. Sharma and V. Ramaswami, JJ.

Print Page

Whether court can fix quantum of rent considering rate of rent pleaded by landlord?

 During the course of argument much stress was given on the ground that the rate of rent has wrongly been fixed by the trial court. The assertion is that the rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and not at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. This issue has been decided in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the rent receipts produced by the plaintiff. The defendant never came forward to lead his evidence in rebuttal and in fact, he never came forward to argue the case. A perusal of the order dated 07.07.2018 at page 155 of the paper book clearly indicates that at least 8 dates were fixed for evidence of the defendant and his applications to recall the orders, whereby his opportunity to lead evidence were closed, were allowed on payment of cost on several occasions, but still he did not come forward to lead any evidence. He even after seeking time for argument did not come forward to argue the case and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing by the court below to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff on the issue of rent deed of land.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

S.C.C. Revision No. 97 of 2018

Decided On: 04.12.2018

 Bobby  Vs.  Raj Kumari

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.K. Birla, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 (NOC) 647 ALL

Print Page

Comprehensive definition of word rent given by Supreme Court

 In the case Abdul Kader (supra), the Court has taken view that the Supreme Court has held that the term 'rent' has not been defined in the Act. "The terms 'rent' is comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed by the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation not only of the building and its appurtenances but also furnishing, electric installations and other amenities agreed between the parties to be provided by and at the cost of the landlord".

13. In view of this, reliefs claimed and evidence of the parties to be taken into account. The landlord has admitted that he was charging ` 10/- towards rent of the rooms and ` 30/- p.m. towards water charges, which were using by the tenants for washing clothes.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 104 of 1994 and Civil Revision Application No. 788 of 2011

Decided On: 25.04.2018

 Ramdhiraj Laxman Dhobi Vs Ramdas Behari Dhobi

Print Page

Whether eviction decree is to be passed against tenant if he pays rent irregularly even after receipt of demand notice?

It is undisputed that the petitioner is a landlord and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the tenants. It is also not disputed that the agreed rent is Rs. 400/- p.m. The bone of contention is about the payment of rent. The landlord had issued a notice on 2-9-2002, demanding the payment of rent, failing which necessary suit would be filed for recovery of amount and possession. The receipt of the said notice is not disputed by the tenant. The suit is filed on 2-12-2002. It is on record that the tenant had issued the banker's cheque in respect of the rent on 30-12-2002 i.e. after the lapse of 90 days and that too without the amount of interest. Both the Courts have concurrently found and held that the tenant failed to pay the rent within the period of 90 days from the date of service of notice upon him. The fact that the tenant did not deposit the rent along with interest after the lapse of 90 days is also held by both the Courts. Moreover, it is also observed concurrently by both the Courts that even during the pendency of the proceedings, the defendant has failed to deposit the rent regularly every month but has deposited in lumpsum sometimes the rent of eight months together. In such circumstances, even the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Sitaram Maruti Nagpure vs. Fakirchand Purushottam Dhase referred supra and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Sitaram Narayan Shinde and others vs. Ibrahim Ismail Rais and others referred supra would not be applicable and the tenant would be liable for a decree of eviction on the said ground of having committed default.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

W.P. No. 4722 of 2011

Decided On: 20.09.2011

 Rafiq Ahmed Qureshi Vs.Iqbal Khan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.V. Gangapurwala, J.

Citation: 2012(4)ALLMR647, 2012(1)MhLj337

Print Page

To what extent Bombay Port trust can claim exemption from rent Act?

 By its very nature, rent legislation covers the relationship between landlord and tenant. It does not deal with creation of tenancy but it places either a restriction or embargo on the right of the landlord under the general law relating to revision of rents and eviction. The Rent Act also deals with the question of charging of rent and to that extent it also encroaches upon the field of general law as to the creation of tenancy because creation may be according to general law but that part of the transaction where the tenant agrees to pay a certain amount of rent will be regulated and controlled by the provisions of the Rent Act. Unless therefore it is shown that in the Major Port Trusts Act there are similar provisions as to the control, regulation or revision of rent and relating to eviction, obviously the said theory and occupied field cannot have any place whatsoever. We, therefore, reject this submission.

76. In view of the aforesaid finding the appellant trust will stand governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. To the extent permissible therein, the appellant trust can certainly increase the rent periodically and the occupants of the plots on whatever terms and conditions at present will also have to abide by the same. We also hold that the appellant trust cannot claim any exemption from the provisions of the Rent Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Appeal Nos. 258, 313-327 of 1991

Decided On: 01.08.2000

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay  Vs. Jayantilal Dharamsey and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.J. Pandya and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Citation : AIR 2001 Bom 26

Print Page

Whether tenant who has failed to deposit standard rent within ninety days of order is liable to be evicted?

The material on record also shows that even after the fixation of standard rent by the trial Court by an order dated 07-01-2004 at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month, the petitioner did not deposit the entire arrears from 01-01-2002 up to date within 90 days from the said order dated 07-01-2004. Therefore, upon minutely scrutinizing the evidence and material on record, it is seen that the petitioner had clearly committed default and thereby exposed himself for grant of eviction decree on the ground of arrears of rent under subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Section 15 of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings rendered by the Courts below concurrently, on the basis of material and evidence on record. In such a situation, this Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner to reverse the decree of eviction granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 279 of 2016

Decided On: 11.09.2018

 Ataullahkhan Vs.   Kernath Jaywantrao Nagargoje and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 471

Print Page