Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing K. Narasimha Rao vs T.M. Nasimuddin Ahmed on 23 February, 1996

L.Prem vs Rajan C.Ramchandani on 14 June, 2011

The said payment of advance amount will go along with the property and therefore, the landlord who has been approved as administrator of the said properties as per the order of this Court made in Ex.P4 dated 13.12.1999 is certainly bound to repay the payment of advance made to the erstwhile landlord Seetha Nirmaldoss. Such a fact need not be placed in the counter nor replied in the notice sent by the landlord to the tenant because it is a fact which has been proved through the documentary evidence before the learned Rent Controller in a summary proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be simply ignored for want of registration of the said document. On the foot of the payment of advance available to the credit of the tenant, no doubt the arrears said to have accrued from 1.10.1996 to 30.04.1999 shall be adjusted in view of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (1996) 3 SCC 45 ( K. Narasimha Rao vs. T.M. Nasimuddin Ahmed). It has been categorically laid down by the Honourable Apex Court as follows.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

Mr.Nandi Khanna vs Suneel Aiyer on 30 January, 2009

As per the terms of the lease agreement as I have referred to above the security deposit of Rs.75,000/- the parties have agreed not to adjust the same towards arrears of rent. Further, I am of the considered view that even on the date of filing of petition under Section 11(4) of the Act itself the arrears of rent exceeds the advance amount in the hands of the landlords. Under such circumstances, it is not open to the tenants to ask the landlords to adjust the advance amount towards arrears of rent, which cannot be done.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - A C Adityan - Full Document

K.Ugrapandian vs K.E.Ramalingam on 26 June, 2013

12. Let me consider, these two contentions one by one. In so far as the retaining of the advance amount of the Landlord to the tune of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, it could be seen that the default period commenced from 01.07.2008 and continued till the date of RCOP, dated 22.01.2009. Thus for 7 months, the rent was not paid. If 22,575/- representing the rent for 7 months is taken into consideration, still the advance amount retained by the Landlord is not certainly in excess of the advance, which the Landlord is entitled to retain. This has been rightly found by the learned Rent Controller, at paragraph 9 of his order. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not justified in relying on the decisions reported in 2012 (5) CTC 283 (Latha and others Vs. L.Thangaraj) as well as AIR 1996 SC 1214 (K.Narasimha Rao Vs. T.M. Nasimuddin Ahmed. At any event, when the default had continued even after filing of the RCOP till this date, the petitioner/tenant is not entitled to rely on the said decisions as both are factually distinguishable.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - K R Baabu - Full Document

Amar Promoters And Anr. vs J.S.A. Gajendra Reddy And Ors. on 24 June, 2005

19. Even assuming that the lessee was in arrears of rent for over six months as on 22-5-1999, the lessor did have the option of claiming an adjustment of such arrears from the security deposit outstanding with the lessor in a sum of Rs. 3 lakh. This would have been in consonance with Clause 17 of the lease deed. And this is the settled position of law. See M/s. Sarwan Kumar Onkar Nath v. Subhas Kumar Agarwalla, ; Kranti Swaroop Machine Tools Private Limited and Anr. v. Smt. Kanta Bai Asawa and Ors., ; K. Narasimha Rao v. T.M. Nasimuddin Ahnied, and Modern Hotel, Gudur v. K. Radhakrishnaiah and Ors., . Even though the above cases are with reference to cases arising under Rent Acts, the question of law, whether a lessee could be said to be in arrears when the lessor holds a sum of money to the account of the lessee, which is larger than the amount of arrears is concerned, the consistent view of the Apex Court is that the lessee in such cases cannot be said to be in arrears. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the lessee was in arrears of rent as on 22-5-1999 and hence the determination of the lease on this count is invalid and not enforceable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - A Byrareddy - Full Document

D.B. Kingsley vs Shoba Viswanathan on 10 November, 2000

25. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the decision reported in K. Narasimha Rao v. T.M. Nasimuddin Ahmed , wherein the Apex Court was pleased to hold that payment of excess amount in advance more than the amount due being legal, the landlord, having failed to refund the same to the tenant, is bound to adjust it towards the amount due from the tenant and that if the excess advance amount is adjusted and there is no arrears of rent, then it will not amount to wilful default.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next