Chander Mohan JaIn and ors. Vs. State Bank of Patiala and anr.

Chander Mohan JaIn and ors. vs State Bank of Patiala and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 03, 1994

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/700040

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/700040
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mahinder Narain, J.
Decided On: May 03, 1994
Case Number: Interim Application No. 6869 of 1993 and 3162 of 1994 and Suit No. 252 of 1993
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Lease - Premises becoming uninhabitable due to collapse of roof--sealed by NDMC as such--contract of lease not voided by tenant--liable to pay rent--directed accordingly. - - (3) It is stated in the reply that a part of the roof had collapsed on 13.10.1990, and the building was sealed by the New Delhi Municipal Co...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Acts & sections: Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 108

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chander Mohan JaIn and ors.

Advocate J.K. Seth,; Girish Verma,; S.P. Goyal,;

Respondent

State Bank of Patiala and anr.

Legal References

Acts: Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 108
Cases Referred: (Chamber of Colour and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Trilok Chand
Reported In: 58(1995)DLT799; 1994(29)DRJ575; (1995)111PLR43; 1995RLR404

Excerpt

lease - premises becoming uninhabitable due to collapse of roof--sealed by ndmc as such--contract of lease not voided by tenant--liable to pay rent--directed accordingly. - - (3) it is stated in the reply that a part of the roof had collapsed on 13.10.1990, and the building was sealed by the new delhi municipal committee on 05.10.1990, by declaring it to be unsafe.mahinder narain, j.(1) this is an application for bringing on record the subsequent events. the application is allowed. (2) this is application for direction to defendant no.1 that the rent of the premises occupied by defendant no.1 bank be paid. the claim in the application is for payment of rs.1,02,600.00 per month. (3) it is stated in the reply that a part of the roof had collapsed on 13.10.1990, and the building was sealed by the new delhi municipal committee on 05.10.1990, by declaring it to be unsafe. section 108(e) of the transfer of property act, 1882, has remained unchanged since 1882. if the defendant/ tenant was so minded, it had the option of voiding the lease. it has not done so. so long as the lease has not been voided, the defendant bank is liable to pay the rent. (4) mr.j.k. seth relies on the case reported as 1973 rajdhani law reporter (note) 68, being s.a.o. no.30 of 1969 (chamber of colour and chemical pvt. ltd. v. trilok chand), where it was held by this court that a tenant cannot treat a lease as subsisting and suspend payment of rent. i am in respectful agreement. (5) the defendant bank has not voided the leas we in question. it continues to regard itself as tenant. as a tenant it has to pay the agreed rent. i, thereforee, direct the defendant to deposit the rent of rs.l,02,600/ -per month, which has admittedly not been paid since 31.10.1990, in court within ten days, as it is said by the defendant's counsel that there is no difficulty in paying the rent. (6) the sealing of the premises by the new delhi municipal committee has no bearing on the matter, as the defendant bank has chosen not to void the lease. case be listed before the joint registrar on 04.08.1994.

Full Judgment

Mahinder Narain, J.

(1) This is an application for bringing on record the subsequent events. The application is allowed.

(2) This is application for direction to defendant No.1 that the rent of the premises occupied by defendant No.1 bank be paid. The claim in the application is for payment of Rs.1,02,600.00 per month.

(3) It is stated in the reply that a part of the roof had collapsed on 13.10.1990, and the building was sealed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee on 05.10.1990, by declaring it to be unsafe. Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, has remained unchanged since 1882. If the defendant/ tenant was so minded, it had the option of voiding the lease. It has not done so. So long as the lease has not been voided, the defendant bank is liable to pay the rent.

(4) MR.J.K. Seth relies on the case reported as 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 68, being S.A.O. No.30 of 1969 (Chamber of Colour and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Trilok Chand), where it was held by this Court that a tenant cannot treat a lease as subsisting and suspend payment of rent. I am in respectful agreement.

(5) The defendant bank has not voided the leas we in question. It continues to regard itself as tenant. As a tenant it has to pay the agreed rent. I, thereforee, direct the defendant to deposit the rent of Rs.l,02,600/ -per month, which has admittedly not been paid since 31.10.1990, in Court within ten days, as it is said by the defendant's counsel that there is no difficulty in paying the rent.

(6) The sealing of the premises by the New Delhi Municipal Committee has no bearing on the matter, as the defendant bank has chosen not to void the lease. Case be listed before the Joint Registrar on 04.08.1994.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1994 Same Parties Chander Mohan JaIn and ors. vs State Bank of Patiala and anr. Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Mahinder Narain, J. Acts & Sections Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 108

Tenancy