According to media reports, a three-member bench headed by Justice Rohington F. Nariman, who is hearing the case, has refused to give any relief to tenant Dinesh.
Supreme Court (Photo Credit: NewsNation)
- Tenant should not forget that he is not the owner of the house but only a tenant: Supreme Court
- A three-member bench headed by Justice Rohington F. Nariman denied any relief to the tenant.
Supreme Court Has made a very important comment about tenants. The Supreme Court has refused to give relief to a tenant who was reluctant to vacate the house. The Supreme Court said in its remarks that those whose houses are made of glass, they do not hit other people with stones. The latest decision of the court has made it clear that the landlord is the real owner of the house. According to the court, no matter how long the tenant is living in a house, that tenant should not forget that he is not the landlord but only a tenant.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Rohington F. Nariman refused to grant any relief
According to media reports, a three-member bench headed by Justice Rohington F. Nariman, who is hearing the case, has refused to give any relief to tenant Dinesh. The Supreme Court ordered that the tenant must vacate the premises. In addition, the court has also ordered the tenant to pay the remaining rent as soon as possible. According to media reports, the tenant’s lawyer, Dushyant Parashar, asked the bench to give him time to deposit the outstanding rent, but the court refused to give the tenant more time to clear the arrears. The court said that the way the tenant has harassed the landlord, no one can provide relief after that. The court said that the tenant would also have to pay the outstanding rent and the premises would also have to be vacated.
Explain that for almost three years, the tenant had not paid the rent to the landlord. Also, he was not emptying the shop. After this, the landlord approached the court. The lower court had ordered the tenant to vacate the shop in two months and also to repay the outstanding rent amount. According to media reports, the lower court had ordered the payment of rent of 35 thousand per month from the filing of the suit to vacating the premises. In January last year, the Madhya Pradesh High Court gave the tenant 4 months to deposit about nine lakh rupees. The tenant did not accept the High Court order and reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition of the tenant and issued orders to vacate the shop immediately.
First Published : 01 Apr 2021, 11:07:01 AM