Rent Control Appeal and Stay
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 09 January 2011
This query is : Resolved
Tenant sent rent by money order to the land lord. Landlord refused to received the money order and filed eviction petition (RCOP).
No notice issued on the tenant.
Dispute over the rent amount and period to be paid was raised in the court. Court passed interim order to deposit rent amount as per the agreement in force. Tenant deposited the money as per the interim order and was depositing every month without fail.
Court held that there is a will full default committed by the tenant. Court also held that the period and the amount of the rent arrears claimed by the Landlord is right. The court had not directed the tenant to pay the difference of amount. Erroneously decided that the interim order was not complied, because the court had not seen or called for the receipts deposited in the treasury. But, ordered eviction.
RCA filed. Stay petition is also filed. Interim stay not granted, stating that the tenant has to deposit the rent arrears. But the Stay petition and RCA pending.
1. What is the rule for getting interim stay?
2. Whether the tenant has to deposit money, even though he was complying with the interim order of the lower Court?
3. Whether the tenant has to continue depositing rent as per the lower court’s interim order?
4. Whether the appeal before High Court is possible for denying the interim stay?
5. Whether the land lord can file EP?
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 09 January 2011
Is it real case.
Since far want of notice the proceedings by landlord against tenant not maintainable.
If real problem check the mathematics and present the facts before the appellate court.
Sushil Kumar Bhatia
(Expert) 09 January 2011
Dear,
You have not disclosed the full facts of the case,moreover before notice if you have sent rent through money order it was your obligations to pay rent to the landlord uptodate,otherwise you will be liable for eviction ,you said the landlord did not serve upon you notice of quit which is mandatory in nature is a legal flaw in absence of notice u/s 106 T.P.Act the suit for eviction is legally not maintainable the burden of proof on landlord to prove the sufficient service of notice ,if you have not deposit entire rent,expenses ,interest etc in the suit on first hearing of the suit you shall be liable for eviction and recovery of rent ,
even a lesser amount can be caused to eviction,in appeal the court can order for deposit of entire decreetal amount and can compensate landlord by mean of mesne profit of use and occupation till actual eviction which you bound to deposit and thereafter appellate court can grant interim relief of stay of operation and enforcement of the order of lower court
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 09 January 2011
It is a real case.
The trial court held that the notice is not mandatory.
Even though the rule says as willful default only if the rent is not paid even after the notice from the landlord.
Is there any citation saying that it is mandatory.
There are lot of illegality in the orders passed by the lower court.
Like the amount of rent as per the agreement is X, the rent claimed by the landlord is Y, amount fixed by the lower court is Z. Z= x < Z < Y.
Can the lower court do this?
It was submitted that if the landlord is not satisfied with the X rent, they can only file a petition for fair rent. This argument was ignored by the lower court.
