9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging judgment for arrears of rent. 2. Dismissal of claim for rent based on registered lease deed and advance rent payment. 3. Interpretation of Section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding advance rent payment. 4. Comparison of different High Court judgments on the application of Section 50. 5. Application of Section 50 to the present case where advance rent was paid as consideration for the lease. Analysis: The tenant filed a petition under Article 227 challenging a judgment decreeing the landlord's claim for arrears of rent. The trial court had dismissed the claim based on a registered lease deed where the tenant had paid advance rent to the former owner. The trial court held that the plaintiffs, as new owners, were not entitled to recover rent since the tenant had already paid rent to the previous landlord. However, the Assistant Judge set aside this finding, citing Section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 50 states that payment made in advance to the former landlord does not discharge rent due after the transfer of property. The judge referred to previous High Court judgments to support this interpretation. The tenant's counsel argued that different High Court judgments had taken a contrary view on the application of Section 50. However, the judge found that these cases did not support the tenant's argument. The judge specifically mentioned a case from the Calcutta High Court where it was held that to benefit from Section 50, the tenant must pay rent as rent and not in advance, which was considered a loan to the lessor. In the present case, the rent note explicitly stated that the advance amount was paid as rent, entitling the tenant to the protection of Section 50. The Assistant Judge also relied on a decision from the Rajasthan High Court, which further supported the application of Section 50 in cases where advance rent was paid as consideration for the lease. The judge concluded that the tenant was entitled to the protection of Section 50 and allowed the petition, quashing the previous judgment and decree. The tenant was awarded costs, and the decree of the Joint Civil Judge was restored.
|
