https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301925 The Delhi HC held that a lessee in continued occupation of leased premises could not avoid contractual rent obligations merely by relying on Covid-19 force majeure claims or Disaster Management Act directions, because the rent liability arose from subsisting lease terms and was not shown to depend on revenue sharing. It also held that the security deposit had to be governed by the lease deed and could not be unilaterally adjusted against alleged arrears in interim proceedings under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The interim direction to deposit arrears and comply with related measures was upheld. en-us Thu, 10 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Apr 2022 20:32:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301925 The Delhi HC held that a lessee in continued occupation of leased premises could not avoid contractual rent obligations merely by relying on Covid-19 force majeure claims or Disaster Management Act directions, because the rent liability arose from subsisting lease terms and was not shown to depend on revenue sharing. It also held that the security deposit had to be governed by the lease deed and could not be unilaterally adjusted against alleged arrears in interim proceedings under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The interim direction to deposit arrears and comply with related measures was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301925