Top News Headlines 2nd March 2022: Kejriwal’s Rent Aid Promise Bad In Law: Principle Of Promissory Estoppel Will Not Apply

Kejriwal’s Rent Aid Promise Bad In Law: Principle Of Promissory Estoppel Will Not Apply: SC

• The Hon’ble SC in Najma and anr. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi has dismissed the challenge to the order of the Delhi HC in September 2021 wherein the HC had stayed the order of the single Judge for enforcing the promise made by CM Kejriwal to pay the rent of the poor tenants who were unable to pay the rent in the nation-wide lockdown imposed in 2020.
• The bench of Justice Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant was considering a SLP filed against the stay order passed by the division bench of the HC.
• In July 2021, a single bench of the Delhi HC had held that the promise to pay off the rent of the poor tenants by the CM would constitute a valid, binding promise and the CM must use his power to give effect to his promise. In this case, the Court was dealing with a petition that was filed by the daily wage workers who were unable to pay their monthly rent and sought the enforcement of the promise that was made by CM Kejriwal on 29 March, 2020.
• In a press conference held on 29th March, 2020, CM Kejriwal had requested the landlords to postpone the collection of rent from poverty stricken tenants. In his speech, the CM had promised that if a tenant had been unable to pay the rent due to poverty, the government of Delhi would pay for it. Justice Chandrachud read out this relevant part of the excerpt as it was originally delivered.
• The petitioners argued that the right to shelter is a fundamental right of the citizens and the State must guarantee that to every citizen. It was also pleaded that till the appeal is decided, the poor petitioners will be forced to vacate their houses which would result in untold misery. 
• Justice Chandrachud observed that the words used were “thoda bohot kiraya” (some of their rent) does not include a valid offer. The law that was laid down in Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892) which stated that an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer which could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms would not apply here and thus the same is out of the scope of promissory estoppel.
• Thus it was observed that no case for interference under Article 136 was made out. The SLP was rejected on this ground only. 

The Courts Have No Power To Extend The Period Of Limitation On Equitable Grounds: SC

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC), in an appeal filed by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the case of Lingeshwaran Etc. v Thirulimgam, has affirmed the view taken by the Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras (HC) with regard to the condonation of delay.  
• The High Court, in its judgment, set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned Trial Court wherein it condoned a huge delay of 467 days in preferring an application for setting aside an ex-parte decree passed by a lower Court.  The delay was pardoned to accord both the parties an opportunity of fair trial.  
• Although the Trial Court was of the view that the application lacked on merits, the Court observed that by allowing the application for condonation of delay, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff and, therefore, the delay can be condoned by compensating the plaintiff by way of heavy costs.  This impugned order was set aside by the HC.  
• Affirming the view of the High Court, the SC noted that once the Trial Court established that the delay has not been properly explained and the application is not on merits, the matter should rest there.  Condonation without merits would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches.  
• The SC relied on an earlier decision of the Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v Land Acquisition Officer wherein the Court held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the court does not have any power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.  
• The Court also referred to the observation made in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai where it was observed that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and was enacted to ensure that the aggrieved party approaches the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay.  The concept of limitation was put in force to ensure that every remedy remained alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature.  In light of the above discussions, Supreme dismissed the SLP and upheld the view taken by the HC.