M/S. FASHION WORLD versus BANSHIDHAR MULTI BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

M/S. FASHION WORLD versus BANSHIDHAR MULTI BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

Since the appellant deposited the balance amount of GST (which was the basis for the Trial Court and High Court orders striking off the defence), those orders were quashed and set aside; the appellant was permitted to defend the eviction suit, subject to payment of rent as directed by this Court for the specified periods, and the High Court was directed to finally decide the suit within six months.

Parties
Appellant; Tenant: M/S. Fashion World; Respondent; Landlord: Banshidhar Multi Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Confirming Trial Court Order Striking Off Defence Under Section 13(6) of the M.p. Accommodation Control Act, 1961
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Strike Off Defence Under Section 13(6), Liability for Tax (gst) Under Lease, Periodical Rent Enhancement
M.p. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 Landlord and Tenant Law Eviction Goods and Services Tax (gst) Strike Off Defence Under Section 13(6) Liability for Tax (gst) Under Lease Periodical Rent Enhancement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. Fashion World

Appellant; Tenant

Banshidhar Multi Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent; Landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Confirming Trial Court Order Striking Off Defence Under Section 13(6) of the M.p. Accommodation Control Act, 1961

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defence of tenant can be struck off under Section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for non-deposit/non-payment of tax (GST)
  2. 2 Whether rent includes liability to pay tax (GST)
  3. 3 Whether periodical enhancement of rent as per lease (15% every three years) should be given effect to and applied to determine payable rent

Ratio Decidendi

Since the appellant deposited the balance amount of GST (which was the basis for the Trial Court and High Court orders striking off the defence), those orders were quashed and set aside; the appellant was permitted to defend the eviction suit, subject to payment of rent as directed by this Court for the specified periods, and the High Court was directed to finally decide the suit within six months.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The impugned judgment and order of the High Court and the order of the Trial Court striking off the defence of the appellant are quashed and set aside.
  • The appellant is permitted to defend the eviction suit and the suit may be considered in accordance with law and on its merits.