9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 691 - SC - Indian LawsStriking off the defence of the appellant original defendant allowing the application submitted by the original plaintiff landlord submitted under Section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - HELD THAT - The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the learned Trial Court striking off the defence of the appellant is quashed and set aside and the appellant is permitted to defend the eviction suit/suit, which may be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits. However, at the same time to strike the balance, we direct the appellant tenant to pay the rent @ Rs. 58,650/- till September, 2011; @ Rs. 76,245/- for the period between October, 2011 to September, 2014; @ Rs. 87,681/- for the period between October 2014 to September, 2017; @ Rs. 1,00,833/- for the period between October, 2017 to September, 2020; @ Rs. 1,15,958/- for the period between October, 2020 to September, 2023 and to continue to pay the rent @ Rs. 1,15,958/- for the period October, 2023 onwards till the final disposal of the suit to be paid within six weeks from today. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of miscellaneous petition by High Court confirming Trial Court's order striking off appellant's defense under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961. 2. Liability of tenant to pay GST under Lease Agreement. 3. Appellant's deposit of balance GST amount post court order. 4. Request to consider rent enhancement by respondent. 5. Validity of striking off defense for non-payment of tax liability. 6. Direction to pay rent as per specified rates till final disposal of suit. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant challenged the High Court's dismissal of the miscellaneous petition, confirming the Trial Court's order striking off the defense under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961. The appellant sought relief from this decision. Issue 2: The Lease Agreement imposed on the tenant the liability to pay rent, maintenance charges, and service tax, which was later replaced by GST. The tenant failed to pay the GST, leading to the application under Section 13(6) of the Act by the landlord to strike off the defense. Issue 3: Following a court order, the appellant deposited the balance amount of GST, which led to a reconsideration of the order striking off the defense by both the High Court and the Trial Court. Issue 4: The respondent requested rent enhancement based on the Lease Agreement, proposing a 15% increase every three years. The respondent's request for rent enhancement was considered by the court. Issue 5: The court deliberated on the legality of striking off the defense for non-payment of tax liability under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961, as raised by the respondent's counsel. Issue 6: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Trial Court, and directed the appellant to pay specified rent amounts till the final disposal of the suit, with a directive for the High Court to expedite the suit's resolution within six months. This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, outlining the legal arguments and decisions made by the court regarding each aspect of the case.
|
