#rent Archives - Prime Legal

3 Nov

No Other Consent Required If The Statutory Right To Reconstruction Is Established: High Of Bombay

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #law, #NOC, #property, #reconstruction, #rent

Title: Chandralok People Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra

Coram : Gs Patel & Kamal Khata, Jj

Dated : 18th October 2023

Introduction:

The Petitioner is a Welfare Association. It says or claims to have as its membership, seven persons who are in its Managing Committee and fully 103 persons who are or were monthly tenants of the Chandralok building at Sudhakar Dubey Compound. The Association is registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.

Facts:

The building was constructed in 1965. It outlived its life. It does not seem to have been subjected even to normal or routine repairs and certainly not to more intensive repairs as the passage of time may have required. By 2014, the building had deteriorated considerably. Then came to pass the usual process of obtaining structural audit reports of the construction. Ultimately these resulted in the second Respondent, the MCGM represented by Mr Waghmare categorizing the building in the C-1 category. This meant that it was dilapidated, dangerous, uninhabitable and required to be pulled down.

The building received notices inter alia under Section 353-B on 10th April 2019 and then a notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (“MMC Act”) on 24th June 2019 is not in dispute. The building was vacated on 16th July 2019 and was demolished. Respondent claims that this demolition is in violation of orders of the City Civil Court, particularly an order dated 11th July 2019.

Since July 2019 all 103 tenants are off-site, scattered across the city, their once tightly-knit community fractured. Since then, and this is the number of the complaint, they have seen no vestige or semblance of any proposal for reconstruction or redevelopment.

Court’s Judgement and Analysis:

The court on the basis of circumstances and because of finding no answer at all to either the Petition or even to queries of this Court in the Affidavit of Respondent, made the Rule partly absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) permitting the Petitioner Association to apply to the MCGM for permission for reconstruction of the demolished building. And regarding the question of transit accommodation or transit rent, court did not find a specific provision to that effect in the MMC Act. So the petitioner were directed towards Maharashtra Rent Control Act ,1999 to find a remedy.

Furthermore it was decided that subject to any orders in Rent Act proceedings, all tenants will continue as tenants in the reconstructed building. The mere pendency of a rent proceeding will not disentitle any tenant to possession of reconstructed premises. The association must make its own arrangements for financing the reconstruction. court have only affirmed their statutory right to reconstruction and the MCGM’s obligation to permit it without requiring the prior consent of Respondents.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

15 Sep

Madras High Court Dismisses a writ petition as there are no merits to entertain and says it’s a civil dispute.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #Civil Dispute, #MadrasHighCourt, #pocsoact, #Police Officials, #rent

Title: R. Geethalakshmi Vs. The Tamil Nadu State.

Decided On: September 13, 2023.

W.P.(MD)No.18184 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.15013 of 2021.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar.

Facts:

The petitioner states that U. Senthilvel the fifth respondent is the tenant under the petitioner from the year 2016 and there was some dispute between them. On 22.08.2020, the fifth respondent along with his friends entered into the house of the petitioner, assaulted her husband and threatened him if he further demands any money, he would be done away. During the last week of October, 2020, the fifth respondent vacated the house, but locked the house and not handed over the key to the petitioner. Further, he failed to pay Rs.40,000/-, being the rental dues. Again, on 06.10.2020 the fifth respondent threatened and abused the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the fourth respondent against the fifth respondent and his mother. The fifth respondent is related to some Police Personnels, who are supporting him and therefore, the fourth respondent has not taken any action against him. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation dated 27.11.2020 to the second respondent. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioner and 5^th respondent on an oral agreement of rent and the 5^th respondent gave Rs.2,00,000 in advance. The fifth respondent and his mother were residing in the first floor of the petitioner’s house. The fifth respondent’s sister’s daughter used to bring food to his mother. On one such occasion, the petitioner’s husband made sexual torture to his sister’s daughter and also made improper touch, for which, a complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.8 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 9(m), 9(u) and 10 of the POCSO Act has been registered by the All Women Police Station, Manamadurai. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner’s husband in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2020. The petitioner has been adopting all tactics, forcing the fifth respondent to ensure the withdrawal of the POCSO Act case registered against the petitioner’s husband and further informed that unless the POCSO Act case is withdrawn, the lease amount will not be repaid. He further submitted that on the complaint of the fifth respondent, the petitioner and her husband were called for enquiry. Initially, the petitioner herein appeared for enquiry before the third respondent and sought further time and thereafter, they did not appear for enquiry. It is a dispute between the landlord and tenant and hence, the Police getaway further action in this regard. The petitioner neither participated in the enquiry nor preferred any proceedings before the Rent Control Court or any other civil forum, seeking appropriate remedy. On the other hand, she invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, which is not permissible in law and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Conclusion:

The petitioner and the fifth respondent had some dispute with regard to tenancy over the property, which can be sorted out between them or through the Civil Court. The respondent Police have rightly kept away from the civil dispute. It is also to be seen that the petitioner’s husband involved in a case relating to POCSO Act and the victim girl is related to the fifth respondent. The Court held Since there are no merits to entertain the present Writ Petition the same is liable to be dismissed.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

10 Jul

Revision petition dropped by Punjab high court – No Merit

Prime Legal

blog #rent, #revsion petition

TITLE: Managing Director, MARKFED v S.C. Bhalla & others

Decided On-: February 22, 2023

CRA-S-870-SB-2004 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Ms Alka Sarin

INTRODUCTION- The contested order, dated 04.03.2022, (Annexure P4), issued by the Rent Controller and challenging it, states that the application for amendment of the ejectment petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), was granted.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The owner of the property in question, S.C. Bhalla, filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as it applied to Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “Rent Act”) for the eviction of the petitioner from the entire first, second, and third floors of SCO No. 22, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh on the grounds of subletting, personal necessity, material alteration, and other reasons.

S.C. Bhalla, the original owner, passed away while the eviction petition was pending, and his legal representatives were subsequently added as parties.

The legal representatives moved an application for amendment of the ejectment petition for pleading his own bona fide personal necessity after being impleaded as parties. The first respondent in this case wanted to change paragraph 11 to read that since the petitioner herein has not paid the arrears of rent relating to the premises, the cause of action is still ongoing. He also wanted to add paragraph 10-A after paragraph 10 to clarify that he did not own and did not possess any other commercial property in the urban area of Chandigarh. The contested order dated 04.03.2022 approved the amendment request.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Since the ejectment petition was filed on the basis of S.C. Bhalla’s bona fide personal necessity, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since he has since passed away, respondent No. 1 in this case would need to file a separate ejectment petition if he wanted to assert his own bona fide personal necessity.

Contrarily, knowledgeable counsel for respondent No. 1 argues that subsequent events can be taken into account and the legal heirs of the deceased landlord can pursue the eviction.petition on the grounds of their own individual need in place of the late landlord’s need.

Both the counsel have relied their arguments on previous judgments of the Supreme court

Whereas the court has come to the decision -There is no issue with the Rent Controller’s contested order approving the application to amend the eviction petition for claiming the genuine personal necessity of the legal representatives. The contested order contains no legal or jurisdictional errors. As a result, I do not think the current revision petition has any merit, and it is therefore dismissed. Any pending applications stand abandoned as well.

Written by– Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement