HC Opines: Unless decided otherwise in Sale Agreement, Tenant who is an Agreement Holder shall continue to pay Rent [Read Judgment]

A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Justice R. Vijayakumar dismissed a petition for stay of execution proceedings for a tenant on the basis that unless there is a particular provision in the sale agreement stating that the tenant shall not be required to pay rent as of the date of the sale agreement, an agreement holder who is the tenant of the property shall continue to pay the rent.

Brief Facts:

The present civil revision petition challenges an order which rejected the request of the judgment debtor to grant a stay of execution proceedings. The petitioner had been given an order of eviction due to default in payment, and on the basis of the eviction order the landlord asked for delivery. During the attempt to make the delivery, it was found that the petition premises were locked. The tenant asked for a stay of the proceedings on the basis that the rent control appeal was pending, but the court rejected the request.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that he had filed a suit for specific performance as there is no tenant-landlord relationship due to him being an agreement holder. He also contended that he would not be able to exercise his rights in a specific performance suit if the execution proceedings did not stay.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that any attempt to stay the execution proceedings has not been fruitful and that this petition should be dismissed.

Observations of the Court:

The Court observed that the rent control appeal of the petition had been in the condone delay stage for more than two years and the tenant had not taken any actions to get the delay condoned or even number the appeal. The court held that the contentions of the petitioner were not legally sustainable as there is a settled position of law stating that unless the sale agreement states otherwise, the tenant of the property should continue to pay rent which the petitioner had not done. It was also stated that stay of execution proceedings are not in question when there has been no delivery of the property to the respondent in 9 months and the petitioner had not even numbered his appeal.  

Decision of the Court:

The civil revision petition was dismissed by the High Court on the basis of not finding merits in the case.

Case Title: K. Jeyakumar vs L. Arunachalam

Coram: Honourable Justice R. Vijayakumar

Case No.: CRP(MD) No. 323 of 2023; CMP(MD) No. 1537 of 2023

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. R.G. Shankarganesh

Advocate for the Respondent:  N.A.

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com