A compromise or reaching an understanding over any dispute is always advisable. There is no contentious issue that cannot be resolved. Personality development experts say that just as every lock is made with at least two keys, there is no problem without a solution. Rent disputes are no exception.
If there is no agreement it is not possible for the landlord and tenant to reach out to each other in order to lease out. If any dispute arises over a continued leasehold relationship, it is not beyond a solution.
The Rent Controller is not the only destination. One should find an alternative to prolonged litigation for this kind of small matter. Even after filing a rent control dispute, there is always the possibility of arriving at a compromise, conclusion, consent over certain agreeable terms, a midway or any other settlement.
Litigation is not ruled out as an option, but it should be the last resort and even during the litigation, one should look for a possible approach which would lead to ending the dispute.
There are neither technical nor legal hitches for parties who — in the case of a rent dispute, want to enter into a compromise and end the litigation. The Rent Controller has enough power to record the compromise.
However there is one limitation. If the compromise or contract reached during the litigation by-passes the protections provided to the tenant, such a contract might not get the stamp and seal of the court. For example, even if the tenant agrees to pay an ‘exorbitant’ rent, the Rent Controller might doubt whether it was agreed to with a free mind and examine whether it would serve the reasonable interests of the parties as per the welfare legislation such as Rent Control Orders. Even where it has been agreed by the tenant that a building would be vacated, the Controller can pass an order only when the case is covered under any of the situations enumerated in the law for eviction. The legal position would be the same even though such a contract is embodied in a compromise entered into between the parties where it is a contract by passing the provisions of the Act which is intended to save tenants even from their own contracts.
The Rent Acts are definitely exceptions to the general law that applies to landlord and tenant. There is a bar on the parties to contract themselves out of the obligations under the Act or to agree to resort to a procedure not contemplated by the enactment. The Civil Procedure Code Rule 3 of Order 23 envisages a decree being passed in respect of part of the subject-matter of a suit on a compromise. Rule 6 of Order 12 permits the passing of a judgment at any stage without waiting for the determination of other questions. However, if the parties make a reasonable settlement, though it results in a condition where both the parties have to concede certain concessions, it cannot be stated to be illegal. It is up to the parties to rent, contract or lease to take advantage of protections and benefits offered by special laws such as Rent Control Act, or they may also prefer to waive some of those rights, benefits or advantages partly or totally. It cannot be stated as illegal or immoral or offending any public right or public policy, only because these benefits have been waived. If the court reviews and considers the compromise as reasonable and workable it could affix its seal and end the litigation. One of the major benefits of the termination of litigation on a compromise is that it cannot be appealed. The parties can calculate the benefits of the compromise and that will be reviewed by the court any way. It is always wise to end the litigation with a calculated understanding called a ‘settlement’.
Courtesy:Deccan Chronical
No comments:
Post a Comment