Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. - Once accepted the enhanced rate of rents[ ofcourse claimed as damage] after issuing of terminination notice, even though there is no fresh tenancy document - it can be treated as month to month rent .basis.
No doubt after the termination of the tenancy, at the first instance by a notice, there were some amounts accepted by the appellant at enhanced rate but that
is claimed by the appellant to be towards damages.
This was followed by a second tenancy termination notice.
There is no fresh tenancy created nor documents executed in that behalf. Thus, at best in our view, the respondent is a tenant on a month to month basis.
It is predicated only on the issue of having accepted the
amounts after notice has been issued under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. We are thus of the view that the impugned order not being sustainable, is liable to be set aside and the order of the Trial Court dated 6 th
November, 2014 is restored.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7251 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil)No.22143 of 2015)
K.V.SATHYAVATHI THROUGH G.P.A. . ..Appellant
Vs.
M/S. AUTO WORLD ...Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The undisputed position is that the appellant is the
landlord and the respondent is the tenant and the period of
tenancy is over. No doubt after the termination of the
tenancy, at the first instance by a notice, there were some
amounts accepted by the appellant at enhanced rate but that
is claimed by the appellant to be towards damages. This was
followed by a second tenancy termination notice. There is
no fresh tenancy created nor documents executed in that
behalf. Thus, at best in our view, the respondent is a
tenant on a month to month basis.
In our view the impugned order is not sustainable.
It is predicated only on the issue of having accepted the
amounts after notice has been issued under Section 116 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
1
We are thus of the view that the impugned order not
being sustainable, is liable to be set aside and the order
of the Trial Court dated 6 th
November, 2014 is restored. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent
requests for some time to vacate the premises. We are
informed that the amount towards the alleged rent @
Rs.18,150/- (Rupees eighteen thousand one hundred and fifty)
per month was remitted but not accepted. We direct the
respondent to remit the amount towards damages at the same
rate upto the date (i.e. September, 2019 month) within a
period of three weeks from today.
We grant time to the respondent to vacate the
premises on or before 31 st March, 2020 subject to furnishing
usual undertaking within two weeks from today in the
Registry of this Court.
For the period for which the respondent will now
enjoy the premises i.e. from 1 st
October, 2019 till 31 st
March, 2020 the damages will be paid at the enhanced rate of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) payable by the 7 th
of
each month in advance.
......................J.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
......................J.
[K.M.JOSEPH]
New Delhi;
September 13, 2019.
2
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22143/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-02-2015
in RFA No. 198/2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru)
K.V. SATHYAVATHI THR. G.P.A. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S. AUTO WORLD Respondent(s)
Date : 13-09-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Arun Mohan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sharan Thakur,Adv.
Mr. Vijaykumar Paradeshi,Adv.
Mr. Arvind,Adv.
Mr. Vinayak B.,Adv.
For Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR
Ms. Asmita Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (ANITA RANI AHUJA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)
3
No doubt after the termination of the tenancy, at the first instance by a notice, there were some amounts accepted by the appellant at enhanced rate but that
is claimed by the appellant to be towards damages.
This was followed by a second tenancy termination notice.
There is no fresh tenancy created nor documents executed in that behalf. Thus, at best in our view, the respondent is a tenant on a month to month basis.
It is predicated only on the issue of having accepted the
amounts after notice has been issued under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. We are thus of the view that the impugned order not being sustainable, is liable to be set aside and the order of the Trial Court dated 6 th
November, 2014 is restored.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7251 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil)No.22143 of 2015)
K.V.SATHYAVATHI THROUGH G.P.A. . ..Appellant
Vs.
M/S. AUTO WORLD ...Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The undisputed position is that the appellant is the
landlord and the respondent is the tenant and the period of
tenancy is over. No doubt after the termination of the
tenancy, at the first instance by a notice, there were some
amounts accepted by the appellant at enhanced rate but that
is claimed by the appellant to be towards damages. This was
followed by a second tenancy termination notice. There is
no fresh tenancy created nor documents executed in that
behalf. Thus, at best in our view, the respondent is a
tenant on a month to month basis.
In our view the impugned order is not sustainable.
It is predicated only on the issue of having accepted the
amounts after notice has been issued under Section 116 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
1
We are thus of the view that the impugned order not
being sustainable, is liable to be set aside and the order
of the Trial Court dated 6 th
November, 2014 is restored. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent
requests for some time to vacate the premises. We are
informed that the amount towards the alleged rent @
Rs.18,150/- (Rupees eighteen thousand one hundred and fifty)
per month was remitted but not accepted. We direct the
respondent to remit the amount towards damages at the same
rate upto the date (i.e. September, 2019 month) within a
period of three weeks from today.
We grant time to the respondent to vacate the
premises on or before 31 st March, 2020 subject to furnishing
usual undertaking within two weeks from today in the
Registry of this Court.
For the period for which the respondent will now
enjoy the premises i.e. from 1 st
October, 2019 till 31 st
March, 2020 the damages will be paid at the enhanced rate of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) payable by the 7 th
of
each month in advance.
......................J.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
......................J.
[K.M.JOSEPH]
New Delhi;
September 13, 2019.
2
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22143/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-02-2015
in RFA No. 198/2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru)
K.V. SATHYAVATHI THR. G.P.A. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S. AUTO WORLD Respondent(s)
Date : 13-09-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Arun Mohan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sharan Thakur,Adv.
Mr. Vijaykumar Paradeshi,Adv.
Mr. Arvind,Adv.
Mr. Vinayak B.,Adv.
For Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR
Ms. Asmita Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (ANITA RANI AHUJA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)
3
