Important judgments on rent law Part 2

1) When it is permissible for landlord to file suit for eviction on ground of arrears of rent?

The   view   expressed   by   Division   Bench   in   the   matter   
Chandiram Ahuja (supra) lays down correct preposition and we are
in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in
aforesaid matter.   The view expressed by Division Bench in the
matter of Narhar Wani (supra) does not lay down correct law and we disagree with the view expressed therein.  
To infer that once the tenant pays the amount recorded in
the   notice   or   tenders   the   same,   the   landlord   has   no   right   to
institute a suit for recovery of possession for non­payment of those
arrears   or   continue   with   such   proceeding   for   eviction   and   no
decree for possession can be asked for, is not within contemplation
of provisions of section 15 of the Act.   The provision does not
interfere with the right of the landlord to initiate proceeding for
eviction,   however,   sub­section   (2)   of   section   15   prescribes
precondition for presentation of suit, that is to say that no suit can
be initiated without issuing a notice within contemplation of said
sub­section (2) of section 15 and tenant's entitlement to claim relief
against   forfeiture   shall   be   subject   to   fulfilment   of   conditions
stipulated under sub­section (1) and (3) of section 15 of the Rent

Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2010
  
Babulal s/o Fakirchand Agrawal Vs  Suresh s/o Kedarnath Malpani

CORAM : R.M. BORDE, 
      RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
      SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJJ

     
 PRONOUNCED ON : 12th June, 2017.
Citation: 2017(4) MHLJ 406 (FB),2017(4) ALLMR 356(FB)

Read full judgment here: Click here

2) Whether landlord can agitate grounds of eviction negatived by trial court in appeal preferred by tenant?

'Any aggrieved party', the expression employed in Section 20(1), means a person feeling aggrieved by the ultimate decision, that is, the operative part of the order. A party to the proceedings, who has succeeded in securing the relief prayed for is not a party aggrieved though the order contains a finding or two adverse to him. The Respondent can support the order and pray for the ultimate decision being sustained, without filing a revision of his own, and for achieving such end he may seek reversal of any findings recorded against him. However, if the non-petitioning party feels entitled to a more beneficial or larger order in his favour but was allowed a lesser or smaller relief then to the extent of claiming the more beneficial or larger relief he should have filed a revision petition of his own as he was 'an aggrieved party' to that extent.

16. There is, therefore, no doubt in the present case that in a revision preferred under Section 20 of the Act by the tenant laying challenge to the propriety of the decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 11(8) of the Act, the landlord could have urged that the order of eviction could be sustained under Section 11(3) of the Act also. The High Court has not erred in permitting the landlord to urge such a plea in the revision filed by the tenant though the landlord did not file any revision of his own. A landlord who has succeeded in securing an order of eviction on one of the several grounds urged by him cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by such order. He can not file a revision rather he can feel satisfied with the order. The person aggrieved is the tenant and in a revision preferred by the tenant it is only just and equitable that the landlord should be permitted to support the order of eviction by disputing correctness of the finding recorded in the impugned order whereby the availability of additional ground for eviction was negatived. Such a right has to be necessarily spelled out in favour of the landlord who has succeeded from the Court below else there would be grave injustice.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SLP No. 1599 and 8694 of 2001

Decided On: 08.07.2002

Nalakath Sainuddin Vs. Koorikadan Sulaiman

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: 

R.C. Lahoti and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2002 SC 2562

Read full judgment here: Click here

3) Whether eviction suit filed by one Co-owner against tenant is maintainable if other co-owner objects for institution of said suit?

The Patna High Court seems to
have taken into account the power of veto which would
be vested in a co-owner if a suit for eviction to
which he objects is held to be not maintainable. The
issue with regard to partition which is an option
open to the co-owners who seek eviction was sought to

be answered by the High Court by holding the
aforesaid remedy to be cumbersome. When the law
provides a remedy which the aggrieved party can avail
of, the same cannot, in our considered view, be
ignored only on the ground that asking the parties to
avail of the said remedy would be relegating them to
another round of litigation.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to
take the view that the decision rendered by the High
Court in first appeal is correct. We, therefore,
affirm the said decision and dismiss these petitions
for special leave to appeal against the order of the
High Court.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9616-9617/2015

MANGAL BUILDERS & ENTERPRISES LIMITED  Vs
WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LTD. & ANR 

Date : 06/04/2017 
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page