The nub of the matter is to examine whether a tenant, who fails to deposit the rent, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement, is entitled to the acceptance of PLA in order to establish that he is not a defaulter. Once the parties had a consensus that monthly rent will be deposited on or before a particular date in a specified bank account of the petitioner-landlord, there is no room for the respondent-tenant to pay or tender the rent, through any mode other than one envisaged under the tenancy agreement, unless the landlord agrees in writing. Suffice to observe that the contracts are meant to be performed and the obligation undertaken by the parties are to be strictly adhered to, which, admittedly, has been violated by the respondent. It is not permissible for the Courts to read into the contract-the tenancy agreement in present case, an implied or tacit term (payment in cash by the respondent in the present case) that is in direct conflict with its express terms and conditions i.e., clause-2 of the tenancy agreement. On a pointed question by this Court, learned counsel for the respondent admitted that the respondent is not seized with any receipt of payment of rent in cash, hence, this is a case where the principle of express or implied novation is also not attracted.
WP 10130-24
ATIF MUNAWAR VS
ADJ ETC
Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain
24-09-2024
2024 LHC 4099
0 Comments