Whether Tenant can sustain an eviction suit by alleging renewal of lease through oral understanding?

-

 





Shubham Budhiraja[1]


Mr. A and Mr. B entered into a registered lease agreement for 3 years. On expiry of lease period, Mr. B refused to vacate the premises. Mr. A filed suit for possession against Mr. B. Mr. B failed to file defense within the stipulated time. Mr. B took a plea of ‘oral understanding’ between the parties for renewal of lease. Mr. A filed application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC seeking judgment on basis of deemed admission. The learned trial court allowed the application and passed order to evict Mr. B. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Appeal upheld the judgment and observed as under:[2]

 

(i)               In an unregistered rent agreement or even in an oral tenancy, the tenancy can at best be considered on a month-to-month basis, and on serving of legal notice, the said tenancy can be terminated and premises ought to be vacated by the tenant.

 

(ii)              The due process of law does not entitle a litigant to force the Court to blindly put all suits through the process of trial when the defendants in their pleading have been unable to disclose any defence. A suit in which the defendants in the written statement have not disclosed any defence or raised any substantial question of law or fact which if decided in favour of the defendants, can defeat the suit claim, does not require any issues to be framed and the suit has to be decreed forthwith. In the name of ‘opportunity’, ‘compliance of provisions of CPC’ and ‘observing due process of law’, the time of the Court is not to be wasted

 

(iii)            Per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease of immovable property for any term exceeding one year can be made only by a registered instrument and all other leases may be made either by registered instrument executed by the lessor and lessee or by oral agreement accompanied with delivery of possession

 

(iv)            Even if suit for ejectment is filed without notice determining lease, after the same has remained pending for over fifteen days, it cannot be defeated on ground of non-service of notice.

 

(v)              It is the bounden duty an obligation of a Court to neutralise any unjust and undeserved gain by a party and a person in wrongful possession should not only be removed as early as possible but be compelled to pay for the wrongful use of the premises by fine, penalty as well as cos

 

(vi)            no one can take advantage of his own wrong. Unless courts disgorge all benefits that a party availed by obstruction or delays or non-compliance, there will always be incentive for noncompliance, and parties are ingenious enough to come up with all kinds of pleas and other tactics to achieve their end because they know that in the end the benefit will remain with them.

 


[1] Advocate, Delhi High Court [LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)], Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com , +91-9654055315

[2] Shokeen Khan v. Jai Singh, RFA/529/2023, Delhi High Court

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more