Section 12 - The Legal Chamber

Law is a Force for Justice, Not Absurdity: Supreme Court on Rent Arrears Eviction Case

9Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Law is a Force for Justice, Not Absurdity: Supreme Court on Rent Arrears Eviction Case

The Supreme Court held that in appeals challenging eviction orders under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings Act, the Appellate Authority is not required to mandatorily re-initiate the entire Section 12 procedure. The deposit of admitted arrears, as determined by the Rent Controller, is a precondition to contest the appeal, unless supervening events warrant a fresh application. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are landlords who filed eviction petitions against the respondent-tenant for two shops in Kochi, alleging non-payment of rent since early 2020. The Rent Controller, relying on a prior money decree for arrears, passed orders under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings Act, directing the tenant to pay substantial outstanding and future rents. Upon the tenant's failure to comply, e...

Supreme Court: Concluded Land Compensation Agreement is Final, Bars Interest Claim

The Supreme Court held that a concluded compensation agreement voluntarily entered into under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, is a final and binding contract. Such an agreement precludes parties from subsequently invoking statutory provisions, like Section 12 for interest, as the contract subsumes all related claims and disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the acquisition of lands in Coimbatore District, initially leased to the Defence Department in 1942, for the expansion of Coimbatore Airport runway. Proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 were initiated in 2011. In 2018, a meeting was convened under Section 7(2) of the Act between authorities and landowners, resulting in a...

When a Contract Becomes Void: Supreme Court Explains the Limits of Specific Performance

The Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell flats, which was contingent upon construction violating building bye-laws and the master plan, was unlawful and void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The Court ruled that specific performance cannot be granted for an illegal contract, and courts cannot rewrite or sever its essential, unlawful terms to make it enforceable. Facts Of The Case: In December 1984, Canara Bank entered into an agreement with K.L. Rajgarhia to purchase residential flats to be constructed on his plot in East of Kailash, Delhi, for ₹32,07,500. The bank paid approximately 90% of the consideration upfront. The agreement specified the construction and sale of eight flats and a basement, with completion required within 18 months. When the defendant failed to ...