Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1966 (2) TMI SC This
Issues:
1. Application under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under art. 227 of the Constitution regarding suspension of rent and apportionment of rent in a tenancy dispute. Detailed Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in a dispute between a tenant and a landlord regarding the non-payment of rent for a specific period. The tenant alleged that the landlord failed to provide possession of one of the three bedrooms as per the lease agreement, leading to a claim for suspension of rent. The Small Cause Court Judge initially ruled in favor of the tenant, allowing the suspension of rent based on previous legal precedents. However, the Full Bench of the Small Causes Court overturned this decision, stating that the landlord's claim for arrears of rent should succeed despite the possession issue. The Full Bench also mentioned the possibility of the tenant claiming other reliefs for the landlord's failure to provide full possession of the premises. The tenant then filed an application under s. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and art. 227 of the Constitution, seeking the dismissal of the suit or a proportionate rent payment. The High Court dismissed the application, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The tenant argued that the principle of suspension of rent should apply due to the landlord's failure to provide possession of one bedroom. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this argument, emphasizing that the doctrine of suspension of rent should not be applied inflexibly in all cases. The court held that the tenant must pay a proportionate part of the rent based on the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that the decision did not set a precedent on the application of the suspension of rent doctrine in cases of partial eviction. The court also noted that the High Court's rejection of the plea for apportionment of rent was too technical, and the case should have been remanded for calculating the proportionate rent. The court highlighted the inequity of allowing the landlord to recover full rent without providing full possession of the premises. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous judgments and remanding the case to the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for further proceedings. The parties were permitted to present evidence on the question of apportionment of rent, and no costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.
|