Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (1.53 seconds)
Documents citing Madan Mohan And Another vs Krishan Kumar Sood on 12 January, 1993

Vipin Sharma & Anr vs Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr on 7 May, 2015

L.C. 498, based upon and in the light of the ratio in the case of Madam Mohan and another vs. Krishan Kumar Sood, reported in 1994 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 437, that the expression "amount due" occurring in the aforesaid third proviso includes the arrears of rent, the interest thereupon @ 9% per annum and the amount of costs. It is also a well settled proposition of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:08:03 :::HCHP ...12...
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Bachhi Ram Dimari (Since Deceased) S/O ... vs Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram Head ... on 23 October, 2007

7. As observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Madan Mohan and Anr. v. Krishan Kumar Sood , what ever protection the Rent Acts give, they do not give blanket protection for non-payment of rent'. This basic minimum requirement has to be complied with by the tenants. The Rent Acts do not contemplate that if one takes a house on rent he could continue to enjoy the same without payment of the rent. The onus to show payment of rent lies on a tenant.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Tandon - Full Document

Devendra Kumar Dixit S/O Late Shiv ... vs Addl. District Judge/Ftc Ist And Ors. on 6 July, 2006

7. As observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Madan Mohan and Anr. v. Krishan Kumar Sood, , what ever protection the Rent Acts give, they do not give blanket protection for non-payment of rent'. This basic minimum requirement has to be complied with by the tenants. The Rent Acts do not contemplate that if one takes a house on rent he could continue to enjoy the same without payment of the rent. The onus to show payment of rent lies on a tenant.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Tandon - Full Document

Santosh Kumari vs Braham Dass (Deceased) Through His Lrs on 31 July, 2019

In Madan Mohan and another v. Krishan Kumar Sood, 1994 Supp1 SCC 437 it has been held that the Rent Control Acts are necessary social measures for protection of tenants, and the Rent Control laws have tried to balance the equity. Their Lordships observed that landlord is duty bound to satisfy the ground of eviction mentioned in various Rent Acts and if he does not satisfy, he cannot get the order of eviction merely because the Act restricts his rights, but there are certain Rent Acts which, even when a ground of eviction is satisfied, still confer powers on the Rent Controllers to consider the question of comparative hardship and it is only in those types of cases, if the Controller is satisfied, he can decline passing orders of eviction. But if there is no such limitations, the Rent Controllers, after the ground of eviction specified in the Act is made out, have no discretion to reject the application. It was further observed that once the order of eviction is passed, the executing court is duty bound to execute its orders. No question of equity or hardship arises at this stage.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Kasturi Devi vs Rajeev Sharma & Ors on 21 November, 2025

rt "9........Undoubtedly, based on the ratio of Madan Mohan and another v. Krishan Kumar Sood (supra), the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord, which the Rent Controller would be specifying in the order of eviction would be the arrears of rent uptil the filing of the eviction petition under Section 14(2)(i) as well as the arrears of rent which have accumulated during the pendency f eviction petition, right up to the date of passing of the eviction order.........."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar vs Smt. Pushpa Devi on 6 January, 2016

is "amount due" is the arrears of rent, interest and the costs, as is so specified in the first proviso and clarified in Madan Mohan (supra), wherein the Court held that the purpose behind the Rent Controller, specifying in the of eviction order, the exact amount of rent payable by the tenant is to directly link it with the third proviso so as to rt effectively enable the tenant to know with certainty the amount that he is liable to pay to save eviction.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - S Karol - Full Document

Jyothi Automobiles, Hyderabad And ... vs Khet Bai And Another on 30 October, 1999

The decision in Madan Mohan v. Krishan Kumar Sood, (supra), is a case dealing with the execution of a decree of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and dealt with the question of the powers of the executing Court to go behind the decree. It was held that the executing Court could not extend the time granted under the decree for deposit of the arrears of rent and the interest thereon. This decision has no relevance whatsoever to the case on hand.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 27 - Cited by 3 - C V Sastri - Full Document

Satish Kumar & Anr vs Jagat Ram on 30 October, 2019

In the present case as well, a fresh period of 30 days has to be reckoned from the date of order of the learned Appellate Authority since the "amount due" as assessed by the learned Rent Controller came to be varied in appeal in view of the interpretation of the expression "amount due" occurring in third proviso to Section 14(2)(i) of the Act by the apex Court in Madan Mohan's case (supra) during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Appellate Authority.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Raghubir Prasad vs Rajendra Kumar Gurudev And Others on 14 May, 1993

14. It should not be lost sight of that in the cases involving the ground of default in payment of the rent as contemplated under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act, the onus to show payment lies on the tenant. Mere oral testimony is not sufficient in this connection for discharging this heavy onus. A tenant alleging that the rent was paid but no receipt was issued by the landlord, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever for not sending the rent by postal money order, cannot be deemed to have discharged the heavy burden which stands cast upon him in this regard. As observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Madan Mohan v. Krishna Kumar Sood, reported in 1993 (1) JT 162: (1993 AIR-SCW 743), whatever protection the Rent Acts give they do not give blanket protection for 'non payment of rent'. This basic minimum has to be complied with by the tenant. The Rent Acts do not contemplate that if one takes a house on rent he could continue to enjoy the same without the payment of the rent.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 154 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next