LexMAHENDRA KAUR ARORA versus HDFC BANK LTD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 280 : 2024 INSC 432 Mahendra Kaur Arora v. HDFC Bank Ltd (Civil Appeals No. 6096-6097 of 2017) 08 May 2024 [Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.] Issue for Consideration In a petition u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Single Judge upheld the order passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal by which the decree passed in favour of the appellant-landlady by the Rent Tribunal was set aside and counter claim filed by the respondent- Bank seeking refund of the security amount was allowed. Appellant filed intra court appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court as not maintainable. Headnotes Lease Agreement – Respondent-Bank terminated the lease agreement by issuing three months’ notice in terms of clause 6 thereof – However, did not hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the appellant-landlady and continued occupying it – As per the appellant, the respondent also did not pay the use and occupation charges in respect of the subject premises, after adjusting the security deposit towards the rent payable for three months – Application filed by appellant seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed by Rent Tribunal, counter claim filed by the respondent was rejected – Appeal filed by respondent, allowed by Appellate Rent Tribunal – Appellant filed petition u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, dismissed by Single Judge – Appellant filed intra court appeal, dismissed by Division Bench of the High Court as not maintainable: Held: Language of Clause 6 of the Agreement made it abundantly clear that the respondent-Bank was liable to refund of the deposit amount contemporaneous to removing itself from the leased premises and handing over vacant possession thereof to the appellant and giving charge thereof to her, which procedure was not followed – Impugned order passed by Single Judge not [2024] 6 S.C.R. 281 Mahendra Kaur Arora v. HDFC Bank Ltd sustainable – However, order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is maintained for the reason that no intra-court appeal could have been preferred by the appellant against an order passed by the Single Judge on a petition filed u/Article 227, Constitution of India – Judgment passed by Rent Tribunal restored and the decree passed in favour of the appellant upheld. [Paras 10, 11] Constitution of India – Article 227 – Order passed in proceedings u/Article 227, maintainability of intra-court appeal: Held: No intra-court appeal can be preferred against an order passed by Single Judge on a petition filed u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 11] List of Acts Constitution of India. List of Keywords Lease Agreement; Rent Tribunal; Appellate Rent Tribunal; Non- payment of rent; Eviction; Recovery of arrears of rent; Use and occupation charges; Termination of lease agreement; Vacant possession not handed over; Security deposit; Refund of deposit amount; Counter claim; Intra court appeal. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6096-6097 of 2017 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2015 in DBCSA No. 332 of 2012 and 09.01.2012 in SBCWP No. 8464 of 2009 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Appearances for Parties Ms. Sobha Gupta, Sr. Adv., Rishi Matoliya, Nikhil Kumar Singh, Raghuveer Pujari, Ms. Sumati Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Sandeep P. Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Varun Phogat, Viresh B. Saharya, Himanshu Dagar, Nitin Sejwal, Saujanya, Ms. Tanya Chanda, Akshat Agarwal, Advs. for the Respondent. 282 [2024] 6 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. The appellant-landlady is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30th July, 2015 passed by the Division Bench1 as also the order dated 09th January, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition2 filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, preferred by her under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant-owner of a commercial premises at Vashistha Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur had leased out a part of the said premises3 to the respondent-Bank for a period of nine years in terms of the lease agreement dated 13th October, 2000, executed between the parties. The relevant clauses of the said lease agreement are reproduced hereinbelow : “LESSEE’S COVENANTS: 2 (j) On the expiry of the said period of the lease or any r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.