The Supreme Court of India recently held that a tenant who once entered the property in question lawfully, continues in possession after his right to do so stands extinguished, is liable to compensate the landlord for such time period after the right of occupancy expires.
Bench comprising Justice JK Maheswari and Justice Sanjay Karol heard a batch of special leave petitions against judgment rendered by the Calcutta High Court wherein the West Bengal Tenancy Act 1997 was held to be applicable.
The petitioner- applicant had filed a suit for ejectment on account of non payment of rent. The suit came to be rejected by the Civil Court. The High Court upheld the rejection of the suit.
The Supreme Court held that the effect of the words ‘determination’, ‘expiry’, ‘forfeiture’ and ‘termination’ would, subject to the facts applicable, be similar, i.e., when any of these three words are applied to a lease, henceforth, the rights of the lessee/tenant stand extinguished or in certain cases metamorphosed into weaker iteration of their former selves.
The Court observed that the denial of monetary benefits accruing from the property, when viewed in terms of the unchallenged market report forming part of the record was undoubtedly substantial and as such, subject to just exceptions.
The Court passed an order for deposit of the amount claimed by the petitioner-applicant, to ensure complete justice inter se the parties.
"After all, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the very purpose for which a property is rented out, is to ensure that the landlord by way of the property is able to secure some income," the Court said.
2024 INSC 445
_20241221234433_original_image_47.webp)
_20241221150827_original_image_16.webp)
_20241221094648_original_image_37.webp)
_20241220161511_original_image_40.webp)
