M/s. Fashion World Versus Banshidhar Multi Builders Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Fashion World  Versus Banshidhar Multi Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7325 OF 2022
(@ SLP (C) NO. 23808 OF 2018)
M/s. Fashion World …Appellant(s)
Versus
Banshidhar Multi Builders Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in
Misc. Petition No. 1509 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed
the said miscellaneous petition preferred by the appellant and has
confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court striking off the
defence of the appellant – original defendant allowing the application
submitted by the original plaintiff – landlord submitted under Section
13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
to as the “Act, 1961”), the tenant – original defendant has preferred the
present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as per the Lease
Agreement, the tenant is liable to pay the rent @ Rs.58,650/- per month
1
for the area admeasuring 2500 sq.ft. super-built-up area. Under the
Lease Agreement, over and above the above amount, the tenant is also
liable to pay the maintenance charges as well as the service tax. On
coming into force of the GST, the tenant is liable to pay the GST instead
of service tax. The tenant, though paid the rent and the other
maintenance charges, however, did not deposit/pay the GST. Therefore,
the original plaintiff – landlord filed an application before the learned Trial
Court under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961 and prayed to strike off the
defence of the appellant - defendant - tenant. The learned Tribunal
allowed the said application and struck off the defence of the appellant –
defendant – tenant. The order passed by the Trial Court striking off the
defence was the subject matter before the High Court. By the impugned
judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the miscellaneous
petition filed by the appellant, which is the subject matter of present
appeal.
3. We have heard Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Rukhmini Bobde,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while issuing the
notice, this Court passed the following order on 31.08.2018:-
2
“Application seeking exemption from filing O.T. is
allowed.
Issue notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is
ready to deposit the balance amount of GST which comes
to Rs. 5,80,000/- approximately. The petitioner will deposit
the said sum before the Trial Court within a period of one
week from today.
In the meantime, further proceedings of the suit shall
remain stayed.”
5. It is reported that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated
31.08.2018, the appellant has deposited the balance amount of GST. In
that view of the matter and considering the fact that the defence was
struck off on non-deposit/payment of the balance amount of GST, which
is now deposited, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the
High Court as well as the learned Trial Court striking off the defence of
the appellant.
6. However, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent has requested to keep the question of law
namely, whether the rent includes the liability to pay the tax or not and
whether on non-deposit/non-payment of the tax liability, the defence of
the tenant can be struck off under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961?
6.1 Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent has further prayed to consider the enhancement of the rent
3
in case this Hon’ble Court set aside the orders passed by the learned
Trial Court as well as the High Court striking off the defence of the
appellant. It is submitted that even as per the Lease Agreement and as
admitted by the tenant in the written statement, there shall be periodical
increase of the rent @ 15% every three years. It is submitted that
therefore the tenant may be directed to pay the rent/enhanced rent by
giving periodical rise by 15%. It is submitted that though at present the
property in question may fetch the rent @ Rs. 4,00,000/- even by giving
15% periodical rise every three years, the rent would come as under:-
“i. Rent till the year September, 2011 : Rs. 58,650/-
ii. Rent enhanced in October, 2011 : Rs. 76,245/-
iii. Enhanced rent at the rate of 15% till September, 2017 will be
Rs. 87,681/-
iv. Enhanced rent at the rate of 15% till September, 2020 will be
Rs. 1,00,833/8-
v. Enhanced rent at the rate of 15% till September, 2023 will be
Rs. 1,15,958/-“
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - landlord
is justified in making the above request.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the
learned Trial Court striking off the defence of the appellant is quashed
4
and set aside and the appellant is permitted to defend the eviction
suit/suit, which may be considered in accordance with law and on its
own merits. However, at the same time to strike the balance, we direct
the appellant – tenant to pay the rent @ Rs. 58,650/- till September,
2011; @ Rs. 76,245/- for the period between October, 2011 to
September, 2014; @ Rs. 87,681/- for the period between October 2014
to September, 2017; @ Rs. 1,00,833/- for the period between October,
2017 to September, 2020; @ Rs. 1,15,958/- for the period between
October, 2020 to September, 2023 and to continue to pay the rent @ Rs.
1,15,958/- for the period October, 2023 onwards till the final disposal of
the suit to be paid within six weeks from today. The learned High Court
is hereby directed to finally decide and dispose of the suit expeditiously
and within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present
order.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed / disposed of in terms of the
above. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
 [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
OCTOBER 17, 2022. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
5

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर