Supreme Court Disposes of Civil Appeals with Directions for Rent Payment. Court directed the respondent to pay specified amounts as rent/compensation during the pendency of the Civil Suit, acknowledging the amicable settlement reached between the parties.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the appellants against the respondent regarding the payment of rent for two premises. The appellants filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a direction for the defendant to pay enhanced rent during the pendency of the suit. The trial court rejected this application, a decision that was upheld by the High Court. During the hearing of the appeals, the respondent's counsel proposed to pay specific amounts as rent, which the appellants' counsel accepted. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by directing the respondent to pay the agreed amounts as rent/compensation, starting from 5th April 2009, and subject to the outcome of the ongoing civil suit. The court appreciated the efforts made by the respondent's counsel in reaching an amicable settlement.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Rent Compensation - Direction for Payment - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - The appellant sought a direction for the defendant to pay enhanced rent during the pendency of the Civil Suit. The court disposed of the appeals by directing the respondent to pay specified amounts as rent/compensation, acknowledging the amicable settlement reached between the parties. Held that the respondent is to pay the amounts commencing from 5th April 2009, subject to the result of the pending suit (Paras 4-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent should pay enhanced rent/compensation during the pendency of the Civil Suit.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by directing the respondent to pay Rs. 31,656.04 and Rs. 38,961.08 as rent/compensation for the two premises, commencing from 5th April 2009, subject to the result of the pending Civil Suit.

Law Points

  • Civil Procedure
  • Rent Compensation
  • Amicable Settlement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2009 LawText (SC) (04) 9

Civil Appeal No.2381 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No.2382 of 2009

2009-04-13

Tarun Chatterjee, H.L. Dattu

S.N. Mukherjee, Vijay Hansaria

Mahabir Prasad Jalan & Anr.

Satish Deora

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil litigation regarding payment of rent.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought a direction for enhanced rent payment.

Filing Reason

The application was filed due to the defendant's failure to pay enhanced rent.

Previous Decisions

The trial court rejected the application, and the High Court dismissed the revisional application.

Issues

Whether the respondent should pay enhanced rent during the pendency of the Civil Suit.

Submissions/Arguments

Respondent agreed to pay specified amounts as rent. Appellant had no objection to the respondent's proposal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the importance of amicable settlements in civil disputes and directed the payment of rent/compensation during the pendency of the suit.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant by filing application under Section 151 of C.P.C. in T.S. No. 23 of 2001, had sought for a direction to the defendant in the Civil Suit to pay rent/compensation at the enhanced rate. We dispose of the appeals, by directing the respondent herein to pay an amount of Rs. 31,656.04 and Rs. 38, 961.08 by way of rent/compensation.

Procedural History

The appellant filed an application in the trial court which was rejected. The rejection was confirmed by the High Court, leading to the filing of special leave petitions and subsequent appeals in the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 151
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Considers Constitutional Challenge to Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and Public Interest Litigation on Snake Capture Festival. Court Clarifies that Temporary Capture of Protected Snakes Constitutes Hunting and is Prohibited Under S...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in NDPS Case Due to Procedural Lapses and Lack of Incriminating Evidence. Court held that non-compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act and absence of contraband recovery from accused Nos. 4, 5, and 6 entitled t...