Judicial Finality - The Legal Chamber

Tenant Evicted for Wilful Default: Supreme Court Upholds Rent Arrears Ruling

31Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Tenant Evicted for Wilful Default: Supreme Court Upholds Rent Arrears Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, ruling that the lessee’s failure to pay the statutorily fixed fair rent—despite not seeking a stay of the fair rent order—constituted wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, 1960. The Court affirmed that pending appeals do not automatically suspend the tenant’s obligation to pay determined rent. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a lease agreement dated 11.10.1999, whereby M/s. Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. (landlord) leased portions of a godown in Coimbatore to K. Subramanian (tenant) for a total monthly rent of Rs. 48,000. The tenant, however, contended the rent was only Rs. 33,000. In 2004, the landlord applied for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller, on 10.01.2007, fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,43,6...

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot revive quashed FIRs under Section 482 CrPC after parties have reached a lawful compromise, emphasizing the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC against reviewing judgments except for clerical errors. It clarified that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, allowing recall only in cases of jurisdictional errors or abuse of process. The judgment reaffirmed that violation of compromise terms must be addressed through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. The Court directed all High Courts to adhere to this settled legal position. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a property dispute in Haryana, where an FIR (No. 432/2014) was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against Raghunath Sharma and others for alleged ...

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

The Supreme Court ruled that repeated applications for condonation of delay under different procedural provisions (Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC) cannot be entertained when the same grounds were already rejected in earlier rounds. Emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws, the Court held that finality of judicial orders must prevail over belated challenges, and litigants cannot abuse process by re-agitating identical delay explanations. The judgment reaffirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn’t apply where prior delay condonation pleas were dismissed on merits. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a 2015 sale agreement between the appellant (Thirunagalingam) and respondent No. 1 (Lingeswaran) concerning property in Nainarkoil village. When the responden...