- 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 and the SLP was rejected.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
