Amar Ujala Bureau, New Delhi
Published by: Dev Kashyap
Updated Thu, 01 Apr 2021 4:08 AM IST
– Photo: PTI
Listen to the news
A three-member bench headed by Justice Rohington F. Nariman, in an earlier order, refused to give any relief to tenant Dinesh, saying that you must vacate the premises. At the same time, the bench refused to give the tenant more time to pay the arrears. Advocate Dushyant Parashar, appearing for the tenant, asked the bench to give him a few days to deposit the amount, but the court flatly refused to grant the tenant. The court said that you are not entitled to relief. You must also vacate the premises.
In fact, the tenant had not paid the rent to the landlord for nearly three years, nor was he in favor of vacating the shop. Tired losing, the landlord had to knock on the court. The lower court asked the tenant not only to pay the outstanding rent but to vacate the shop in two months. At the same time, from the filing of the suit to vacating the premises, 35 thousand per month was also paid to pay the rent. Even after this, several other orders were passed against the tenant but he did not follow the orders.
In January last year, the Madhya Pradesh High Court gave the tenant four months’ time to deposit about nine lakh rupees, but that order was not followed by the tenant. Last December, the court passed an order to evict the tenant from the shop. He was also accused of trying to obstruct the functioning of government officials who arrived at the shop. The tenant had moved the High Court against the lower court’s decision to take possession of the premises but was not relieved from there. He then approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also dismissed the petition, denying him any relief.