The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a tenant’s plea challenging an executing court order issuing a possession warrant, holding that non-payment of rent for five consecutive months made the compromise decree executable and justified eviction proceedings under applicable tenancy law.
MADHYA PRADESH: In a recent ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition challenging an executing court’s order to issue a possession warrant against a tenant. The case centered on the tenant’s failure to pay rent over a continuous five-month period, rendering a compromise decree executable.
Background of the Case
The petitioner’s husband was originally a tenant in a shop owned by the respondent trust. Following an eviction suit, a compromise decree was established on October 31, 2013, stipulating that the monthly rent would be Rs 800.
The decree included a critical clause: if the tenant failed to pay rent for five continuous months, the eviction order would become executable.
ALSO READ: Purchasing Co-Owner’s Share Doesn’t Make Tenant Owner: Delhi High Court
After the original tenant passed away on October 15, 2016, the last rent payment was made up to October 30, 2016. When further payments were not received, the landlord filed an execution petition on May 1, 2017, against the deceased tenant’s son. The widow, Smt. Suman Soni, was later included in these proceedings.
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the orders from the executing court, dated August 26, 2019, and November 22, 2019, were “bad in law.” The defense claimed that the landlord had consistently refused to accept rent. To support this argument, Soni presented an account statement indicating that a cheque for Rs 1,11,040 was tendered on September 20, 2017, but bounced due to the landlord’s account being blocked. The petitioner thus argued that there was no willful default.
Counsel for the Respondents
In contrast, the respondents maintained that the last rent payment only covered the period until October 30, 2016. They contended that the subsequent payment attempt was made in October 2017, leading to an eleven-month delay. They argued that the executing court acted correctly in enforcing the compromise decree, as the five-month threshold for default was crossed by April 1, 2017.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice Vivek Jain of the Single Bench thoroughly examined the payment records alongside the terms of the 2013 decree. He determined that the tenant’s default of five months became effective on April 1, 2017.
The court addressed the petitioner’s claims regarding the landlord’s refusal to accept rent, stating,
“Even if the landlord had been avoiding to receive the rent, the tenant could have deposited the cheque in the bank account within the breathing time of 5 months, but he deposited the cheque also after 11 months of the last payment of rent.”
Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioner had multiple legal avenues available for recourse.
It stated,
“Upon refusal of the landlord to accept the rent, the rent could have been paid before the Rent Controlling Authority, or tendered by money order, but the tenant even did not opt for this course of action available with the tenant.”
ALSO READ: Landlord’s Need Cannot Be Questioned by Tenant: Delhi High Court
The court found that the cheque payment attempted in September 2017 was made only after execution notices were issued, which did not rectify the earlier defaults that had already made the decree executable.
Conclusion:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ultimately concluded that this was a “clear case of the tenant defaulting to pay the rent and violating the terms of the compromise decree.” Finding no fault in the executing court’s decision to issue the possession warrant, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the execution of the rental agreement and the legal rights of the landlord.
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to rental agreements and legal obligations in tenancy relationships, reinforcing that tenants must be proactive in fulfilling their rent responsibilities or face potential eviction.
Case Title: Smt. Suman Soni vs. Shri Rathore Sakal Panch Trust Khandwa and Others,
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES