Abuse of Process of Law

Tenant filing fresh objections in execution petition and starting another round of litigation on frivolous grounds is abuse of the process of the court and flagrant violation of eviction decree which attained finality. Appeal dismissed with cost and directed to hand over possession in three months, else to be evicted by police force. ( Sardar Estates v. Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd., (2009) 6 SCC 609, 2009 (160) DLT 629 : 2009 (8) SCALE 746) In case the tenant did not vacate premises by the date specified for giving of vacant possession, landlord would be entitled to mesne profit of Rs.500/- per day till the day vacant possession was handed over. (Shashi Jain v. Tarsem Lal, (2009) 6 SCC 40, AIR 2009 SC 2617 : 2009 (78) AIC 88 : 2009 (5) SCALE 174) Contempt petition can be filed for non compliance with the direction for depositing the arrears and delay tactics adopted by the defendant tenant to prolong the eviction petition. (Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak 2008 (2) KHC 923; 2008 (14) SCC 392) No doubt long delay in disposal of cases due to docket explosion became a ruse to unscrupulous litigant to abuse the course of law to protract litigation and remain in just or wrongful possession of property. Landlord could be suitably compensated by award of damages. ( East India Hotels Ltd v. Syndicate Bank, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29)

The legilature should strike a balance between rival interests

Insofar as social legislation, like the Rent Control Act is concerned, the law must strike a balance between rival interests and it should try to be just to all. The law ought not to be unjust to one and give a disproportionate benefit or protection to another section of the society. When there is shortage of accommodation it may be desirable, necessary to give some protection to the tenants in order to ensure that they are not exploited. At the same time such a law has to be revised periodically so as to ensure that a disproportionately larger benefit than the one which was intended is not taken by the tenants. It is not as if the Government does not take remedial measures to try and offset the effects of inflation. In order to provide fair wage to the salaried employees the Government provides for payment of dearness and other allowances from time to time. Surprisingly this principle is lost sight of while providing for increase in the standard rent. The provisions continue to be arbitrary in today’s context. (Leelabai Gajanan Pansare v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2008 (9) SCC 720; 2008 (4) KLT SN 72; AIR 2009 SC 523)

Fair Rent Control Act

In Raval & Co v. K.G. Ramachandran, the Supreme Court had the occasion to examine and find out the true object behind the enactment of Rent Laws. After recording the legislative history of the rent legislations in India Mr. Alagiriswami J. observed that “the Madras Legislature had applied its mind to the problem of housing and control of rent and provided a scheme of its own. It did not proceed on the basis that the legislation regarding rent control was only for the benefit of tenants. It wanted the Act to be fair both to the landlords as well as tenants. Apparently, it realized that the pegging of the rents at the 1940 rates had discouraged building construction activity which is likely to affect everybody and therefore in order to encourage new construction exempted the newly constructed building from the provisions of the Act. It did not proceed on the basis that all tenants belong to weaker section of the community and needed protection and that all landlords belonged to the better off classes. . . . It realized apparently how dangerous was the feeling that only ‘fools build houses for wise men to live in’ Mr. Bhagwati J. in dissenting minority judgment provided useful guidelines for interpreting the Rent Control provisions. “it is true that with the doctrine of laissez fair and the assumption by the State of a more dynamic and activist role, the principle or sanctity of contract which is one of the pillars of a free market economy, has in a number of cases been eroded by legislation. But if we examine such legislation it will be apparent that this has happened invariably in aid of weaker party to the contract. . . . . It is to counteract the injustice resulting from inequality in bargaining power and to bring about social or distributive justice, that social legislation interfere with sanctity of contract to restore the balance in the scales which are otherwise weighted in favour of the stronger party which has larger bargaining power. Ordinarily we do not find and indeed it would be a strange and rather incomprehensible phenomenon, that legislation intervenes to disturb the sanctity of contract for the benefit of a stronger party who does not need the protective hand of the legislature. This consideration we must constantly keep before us while constructing the relevant provisions of the Rent Acts.”