Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Hans Raj Khimta vs Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur Alias Sardarni ... on 29 February, 2016

Kunal Kapoor vs Vijay Kumar Verma on 29 December, 2023

Further, according to the learned counsel, this judgment relied upon by the petitioner has not been dealt with/taken into account while delivering the subsequent judgment in Civil Revision No.128 of 2012, case titled Hans Raj Khimta vs. Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur alias Sardarni Babli, decided on 29th February, 2016 and in CMPMO No.156 of 2015, case titled Sanjay Kumar vs. Smt. ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2023 20:32:55 :::CIS 4 Pushpa Devi, decided on 6th January, 2016. Since, the subsequent judgment do not take into account the previous .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Yaseen vs Mohd. Gulzar on 5 July, 2018

For substantiating these submissions, statement of tenant dated 7.1.2017 recorded by Rent Controller and order passed by Rent Controller on 7.1.2017 along with record report of Process Server was also placed on record and on the basis of these documents and oral submissions, Appellate Authority had concluded that notice to the landlord had been given within 30 days from the date of decision and thus first step had been followed by tenant and accordingly ratio of law laid down in Hans Raj Khimta's case was considered not to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Decided On : 06.11.2024 vs Umesh Kumar & Anr on 6 November, 2024

Objector/Jds have also not placed on record any receipt qua such deposit as well. Further, the JDs have resisted the petition on the ground that an application under section 148, 151 C.P.C. for enlargement of time to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.15,598/- on 19-11-2016 is pending. The perusal of case file however shows that said application stands dismissed in default vide order dated 11-4-2019. Even otherwise, in view of Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of H.P in Hans Raj Khimta v. Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur alias Sardarni Babli Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) and in Pradeep Aggarwal v. Maya Poddar and Anr. 2018 7 2024:HHC:11464 Lawsuit (HP) 1040, it is well settled that as per provision of section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, the arrears of rent is to be directly paid to the landlord and cannot be deposited in the court until and unless there is sufficient evidence that landlord has refused to accept the arrears of rent. Perusal of application moved by the JD's shows that no such averments has been made that DHs refused to receive the arrears of rent. Also so far as prayer of enlargement/ extension of time for deposit of rent is concerned, there is no provision for extension of said statutory period of 30 days under the H.P Urban Rent Control Act. Evidently, execution petition on ground of non-payment of arrear of rent is maintainable & sustainable.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avinash Walia vs Purshotam Lal (Deceased) Through Lrs. ... on 11 December, 2025

9. The eviction order, in the case at hand, was passed on 14.10.2024, hence, 30 days for tendering arrears of rent to the respondents/landlord would have expired on 30.11.2024. Though, in the of response filed to the application filed for depositing the arrears in Court, it has been categorically denied by the respondents/landlord that the arrears rt had never been tendered to the respondents/landlord. However, assuming that even if the arrears in the first instance had been tendered to the respondents/landlord and the same had been refused, therefore, the petitioner/tenant was forced to deposit the same in the Court, intimation of the deposit so made in the Court, was required to be given to the respondents/landlord within 30 days of the passing of the eviction order, i.e., on 14.10.2024. No initmation of the same was given to the landlord/respondent. Moreover, in terms of the law laid down in Hans Raj Khimta's case, the deposit of the arrears, in the case at hand in Court was not a valid tender.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurdarshan Singh Bindra vs Shashi Bala And Others on 7 January, 2026

In Hans Raj Khimta's case (supra), it was held that the only meaning which can be given to the expression "pay" is that the rent is to be directly paid to the landlord and not deposited in the Court. Admittedly, in the case at hand, rent has not been paid/tendered to the landlord in the first instance. Deposit has been made in the Court. From a perusal of the application filed by the petitioner/tenant for depositing of rent, it is evident ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:44:26 :::CIS 8 that therein no prayer was made before the Rent Controller for remitting the rent to the landlord or informing him of such deposit. Moreover, the Demand Draft, in the case at hand, was drawn in favour of the Rent .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Vivek Kumar Sharma vs Sh. Achal Jandev on 30 July, 2019

Khimta supra and Pradeep Aggarwal supra, are concerned, in my considered view, said judgments were not applicable in the facts of the present case. In none of the above two cases, there was any direction issued by learned Rent Controller at the time of allowing the eviction petition that the arrears of rent be paid by the tenant either to the landlord or the same be deposited in the Court. In the absence of any such direction, but obvious, the tenant was bound to first tender the arrears of rent to the landlord and in the event of landlord refusing to accept the case, the tenant could have had deposited the same in the Court by filing appropriate application.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A M Goel - Full Document
1   2 Next