SC Holds That Tenant Continues To Be Liable For Rent/Damages Even If Premises Are Destroyed

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

On October 1st, a three-judge bench of SC held that a tenant continues to be liable for rent/damages even if the premises are destroyed. Moreover, a statement made before the Arbitrator cannot be permitted to be withdrawn which is predicated on a mode of calculation, the same not being disputed by the respondents and accepted by the Arbitrator as correct. 

Background

The appellants are in the business of running restaurants/eateries. In the year 1990, the appellants entered into two separate licence agreements with the respondents to operate and run a restaurant cum sweets shop at the respondents’ premises. According to the appellants, the respondents started violating the terms of the agreements after the commencement of the business and raised obstacles in the smooth running of the business. 

On account of the appellants’ non­payment of commission and failure to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondents, the respondents filed a suit before the Delhi High Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. An arbitrator was appointed for the same who published his award on 16.03.1998. 

In the present appeal, the appellants had questioned the legality and correctness of the final judgment and order dated 11.02.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi rejecting the objections of the appellants.

Appellant’s Contention 

The counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants were not liable to pay any rent. Moreover, there was no clause in the Agreement which contemplated payment of damages for the use and occupation of the premises. 

Secondly, it was argued that in the statement of accounts submitted by the appellants, certain errors had crept in inadvertently. Had these corrections been carried out, the compensation payable would have been considerably lesser.

Respondent’s Contentions 

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellants have themselves filed the statement with which they are bound. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not call for interference in the appeal.

Court’s Observations

A three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant heard the appeal and made the following observations: 

  1. The Court concurred with the finding of the Single Judge that the appellants are liable to pay the damages. In this regard, the Single Judge referred to the case of State Bank of Patiala v. Chandermohan. It held that a tenant continues to be liable for rent/damages even if the premises are destroyed and the only option of the tenant if desirous to stop the running of rent is to surrender the premises. Thus as per the respondents own understanding of the relationship also, the respondents were liable for payment of rent.
  2. The appellants are not justified in raising a contrary plea other than what was their defence and statement of counterclaim in the arbitral proceedings.
  3. The Learned Arbitrator has rightly relied on the appellants’ statement of accounts for awarding commission for the period when the business was restarted post-closure between November 1995 and November 1997.

Court’s Decision 

No merit was found in the appeal and was accordingly dismissed. The Court concurred with the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court to reduce the rate of interest from 16% per annum to 9% per annum from the date of the award till the date of its judgment, subject to appellants paying the decretal amount to the respondents on or before 30.06.2010.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -