SHILLONG, India, Feb. 26 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on Jan. 27:

1. In the aforesaid appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 31st July, 2024 passed in WP(C) No. 140 of 2023, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition as not being maintainable.

2. Admittedly, the appellant is a tenant of the respondent No. 2 in his building named 'Crescent Plaza' at G.S. Road, Police Bazaar, Shillong. The appellant is running a hotel under the name and style of "Hotel Lamlyn" in the said premises. It is the appellant's case that as the respondent No. 2 had refused to take rent, the petitioner had been depositing the same before the concerned court for several months. According to the appellant, the last deposit was made by the appellant in the court sometime in January, 2020 i.e., prior to COVID-19 pandemic. As the appellant i.e., the tenant was unable to deposit the arrears of rent, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 140 of 2023 in this Court and sought extension of limitation of 30 days stipulated by the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and as such, sought permission to deposit the total accrued amount of arrears of rent as, one-time deposit. The nondeposit of rent on time was attributed solely to COVID-19 pandemic. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the said writ petition as not being maintainable, on three counts:

(i) that the dispute was a private dispute for which the petitioner (appellant) had an alternate efficacious remedy of approaching the Rent Court;

(ii) that there were disputed questions of fact with respect to claim of payment of rent; and

(iii) that the Apex Court vide its order had allowed relaxation up to 28th February, 2022 whereas, the appellant had approached this court on 18th May, 2023 after more than a year.

3. Mr S. Chakrawarty, learned senior counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and order on the following counts:

(i) that the relevant provisions of law, including the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 did not provide for a one-time deposit of accumulated arrears of rent, due to any extraordinary situation, like the COVID-19 pandemic and hence the only alternative for the appellant (original petitioner) was to approach this Court in writ jurisdiction.

(ii) that by the writ petition, the appellant was only seeking a direction to condone the delay of 30 days prescribed for deposit of rent in court under Section 5(4) of the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court;

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x5ckao6dwiwBc1%2FgOIy0iwAy7BLGEUL5i2MYZR7W%2BTB7&caseno=WA/51/2025&cCode=1&cino=MLHC010009602025&state_code=21&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.