LexBIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF versus ASHWIN BHANULAL DESAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 859 : 2024 INSC 445 Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai (I.A. No.120219 of 2020) In Special Leave Petition (C) No.4049 of 2020 17 May 2024 [J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The interlocutory applications have been filed seeking direction for payment of rent and other associated benefits in connection with the property which is the subject matter of the dispute. Headnotes† Rent Control and Eviction – Non-payment of rent – The lis governs four different tenancies – Petitioner-applicant landlord alleges non-payment of rent and has filed applications in the pending SLPs seeking direction for payment of ‘monthly occupational charges’ following the prevalent market rate: Held: On account of non-payment of rent, the lease was forfeited/determined – However, the respondent-tenant has neither delivered the possession of the property nor paid the rent – Also, the petitioner submitted a report of an independent valuer – The assessment of the rentals, made by the valuer, is @ INR 41/- per Sq.ft. – It is settled that a tenant who once entered the property in question lawfully, continues in possession after his right to do so stands extinguished, is liable to compensate the landlord for such time period after the right of occupancy expires – Prima facie, it is clear that the respondent-tenant had delayed the payment of rent and/or other dues, payable to the petitioner-applicant landlord – This denial of monetary benefits accruing from the property, when viewed in terms of the unchallenged market report forming part of the record is undoubtedly substantial – This order for deposit of the amount claimed by the petitioner-applicant is being passed, to ensure * Author 860 [2024] 5 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports complete justice inter se the parties – It is important to note that when a property is rented out, it is to ensure that the landlord by way of the property is able to secure some income – If the income remains static over a long period of time or in certain cases, as in the present case, yields no income, then such a landlord would be within his rights, subject of course, to the agreement with their tenant, to be aggrieved by the same – Therefore, the respondent is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,15,05,512/-. [Paras 13, 19, 21 and 23] Case Law Cited Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 843 : (2005) 1 SCC 705; State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Super Max International Private Limited and Ors. [2009] 13 SCR 801 : (2009) 9 SCC 772; Achal Misra v. Ram Shanker Singh & Ors. [2005] 3 SCR 439 : (2005) 5 SCC 531; Achal Misra (2) v. Rama Shankar Singh & Ors. [2006] Supp. 1 SCR 617 : (2006) 11 SCC 498; G.L. Vijain v. K. Shankar [2006] Supp. 9 SCR 583 : (2006) 13 SCC 136; Martin and Harris (P) Ltd. v. Rajendra Mehta [2022] 16 SCR 38 : (2022) 8 SCC 527; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Private Limited [2022] 19 SCR 462 : (2022) SCC OnLine 1161; Mohammad Ahmed & Anr. v. Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors. [2011] 6 SCR 822 : (2011) 7 SCC 755 – relied on. Books and Periodicals Cited Halsbury’s Laws of England 3rd Edn. Vol. 23; Wharton’s Law Lexicon Seventeenth Edn.; Burton’s Legal Thesaurus 3rd Edn. – referred to. List of Acts West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997; Transfer of Property Act, 1882. List of Keywords Rent; Non-payment of Rent; Monthly Occupational charges; Independent valuer; Possession of property; Right of occupancy; Denial of monetary benefits; Corpus Juris Secundum; Tenancy at sufferance; Mesne Profit; Expiry of lease; Determination of lease; Forfeiture; Termination. [2024] 5 S.C.R. 861 Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 120219 of 2020 In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4049 of 2020 With I.A. No. 120227 of 2020 In SLP(C) No. 4050 of 2020, I.A. No. 120235 of 2020 In SLP(C) No. 4051 of 2020 and I.A. No. 120248 of 2020 In SLP(C) No. 4052 of 2020 Appearances for Parties Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Vijaya Bhatia, Ganesh Shaw, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh, Sohhom Sau, Samarth Mohanty, Arjun Bhatia, Advs. for the Petitioner. Rupak Ghosh, Debdut Mukherjee, Ms. Sonia Dube, Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Ms. Surbhi Anand, Tanishq Sharma, Ms. Saumya Sharma, M/s. Legal Options, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjay Karol, J.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.