LexM/S ALAGU PHARMACY & ORS. versus N. MAGUDESWARI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1069 M/S ALAGU PHARMACY & ORS. v. N. MAGUDESWARI (Civil Appeal Nos. 8256-8257 of 2018) AUGUST 14, 2018 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction: Eviction petition – Appellant claiming to be tenant of respondent on the strength of a Lease Agreement – Respondent- landlord lodged complaint with police against appellant alleging that the Lease Agreement was forged – Pursuant to suit by appellant for permanent injunction against respondent, compromise entered into between parties, before the police – Thereafter eviction petition by respondent – Rent Controller decreed the eviction petition relying on compromise decree between the parties – Compromise decree challenged by the tenant,, in appeal – There was 604 days delay in filing the appeal – Appellate Court condoned the delay – Revision petition of respondent allowed by High Court disallowing condonation of delay – Review petition dismissed – On appeal, held: Eviction of a tenant cannot be ordered, unless and until ground seeking eviction in terms of the concerned Rent Act is made out, even if parties entered into compromise – Validity on that count can even be raised in execution – In the present case, the complaint proceeded on the premise that the lease deed was forged and there was no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties – Thus, ground under the provision of the Rent Act was not made out – The assertion of appellants that pressure was exerted through the police to enter the compromise is prima facie acceptable – Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – s. 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(3)(c) – Compromise. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The order passed by the appellate court shows that compromise Exh.P-11 was brought about on 29.01.2014 that is even before the eviction petition was filed by the respondent. 1069 [2018] 9 S.C.R. 1069 A B C D E F G H 1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R. Further, said compromise Exh.P-11 was addressed to the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch. The appellate court had further observed that complaint Exh.P-10 and compromise Exh.P- 11 were not disputed by the respondent and no document in rebuttal was filed. The complaint (Exh.P-10) proceeds on a premise that the lease deed dated 22.02.2012 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. [Para 10] [1076-A-C] Ajad Singh v. Chatra and Others (2005) 2 SCC 567 – relied on. 2. 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. The order passed by the High Court does not even deal with this aspect nor was any submission made that the assessment made by the appellate court was in any way incorrect or imperfect. [Para 10] [1076-D-E] 3. The eviction in terms of s. 10(2)(ii)(a) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 can be ordered only if the concerned Rent Controller or Court is satisfied that the ground seeking eviction is made out. Unless and until ground seeking eviction in terms of the concerned Rent Act is not made out, no eviction of a tenant can be ordered, even if the parties had entered into a compromise. Thus 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. In the present case, the order dated 28.03.2014 did not remotely note that any particular ground under the Rent Act was made out. [Paras 12 and 14] [1082-C-D; 1077- D] A B C D E F G H 1071 K. K. Chari v. R.M. Seshadri (1973) 1 SCC 761 : [1973] 3 SCR 691; Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram and Others (1974) 1 SCC 242 : [1974] 2 SCR 544 – relied on. Case Law Reference (2005) 2 SCC 567 relied on Para 10 [1973] 3 SCR 691 relied on Para 12 [1974] 2 SCR 544 relied on Para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.