{"references": ["Ramanand and Others v. Dr. Girish Soni. And Another R.C Rev. 447/2017 decided on May 21, 2020. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, sec 108. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, sec 108B (e). Thomas v. Moram Mar Baselious Ougen I, Catholics Metropolitan AIR 1979 Ker 156. PTI, SC Dismisses Plea Seeking Compliance of MHA's Order on Rent During Lockdown, ETREALTY Sep. 2020, 06 9:18 pm. https://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/regulatory/sc-dismisses-plea-seeking-compliance-of-mhas-order-on-rent-during-lockdown/75567736. Ramanand v. Girish Soni R.C Rev. 447/2017 decided on May 21, 2020. Vasanth Rajasekaran and Shweta Vashist, Force Majeure, Lockdown & Lease Rent: Delhi High Court Provides Clarity, MONDAQ Sep. 2020, 29, 3:00 pm. https://www.mondaq.com/india/litigation-contracts-and-force-majeure/942966/force-majeure-lockdown-lease-rent-delhi-high-court-provides-clarity, Energy Watchdog v. CERC 2017 (14) SCC 80. Hotel Leela v. enture Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India 2016 (160) DRJ 186. Ramanand v. Dr. Girish Soni, R.C Rev. 447/2017 decided on May 21, 2020., \u00b611. Shuchi Bansal and Suneera Tandon, Tenants Continue to Spar With Malls Over Rental Agreements, LIVEMINT, Sep. 2020, 10, 9:48 pm. https://www.livemint.com/industry/retail/tenants-continue-to-spar-with-malls-over-rental-agreements-11591805693114.html. BusinessToday.in, DLF to Waive up to 100% of Base Rent for Tenants amid Coronavirus Crisis, BUSINESS TODAY, SEP. 2020, 11, 7:23 PM. https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/dlf-to-waive-up-to-100-of-base-rent-for-tenants-amid-coronavirus-crisis/story/406913.html supra note 15. Coronavirus Updates: ICICI Bank, PVR, NRAI Seek Rent Waiver from Landlords , BUSINESS TODAY, Oct. 2020, 17 5:45 pm. https://www.businesstoday.in/sectors/banks/coronavirus-updates-icici-bank-seeks-rent-waiver-from-landlords/story/401259.html."]}

Even as unlocks itself and gets back on track to resume economic activities, the uncertainties that cropped up due to the lockdown imposed to combat COVID-19 continue to linger in different areas of our daily activities. The contractual relations related to interest in property are similarly ridden. This essay explores the debate on which of the parties to a lease agreement is obliged to bear the burden of the losses caused due to the halt in business activity. The essay explores the judicial stance expressed so far with a focus on the ruling of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ramanand v. Dr. Girish Soni and thereby culls out the important observations made by the Court on the existing judicial opinion on this matter. The need for mutual consensus between the parties to a lease agreement in the context of differences like lease agreements has been highlighted while considering the need to avoid digging up issues that can hinder the formation of such consensus in times of crisis resolution.