Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Bagas Taparia vs Ram Chandra Pal on 3 November, 1988

Atma Ram vs Shakuntala Rani on 30 August, 2005

In Ram Bagas Taparia vs. Ram Chandra Pal : (1989) 1 SCC 257 this Court considered the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Act provided that payment or deposit of rent shall be made by the 15th of the succeeding month. In that case the tenant claimed benefit of Section 17(4) of the Act. The High Court held that the tenant could not claim such benefit in view of the fact that in order to claim the benefit of Section 17(4) of the Act, the tenant was required to comply with the term of Section 17(1) and follow the procedure laid down therein. Since he had not deposited the entire arrears of rent under Section 17(1) within one month of the service of writ of summons on him or from the date of his appearance in the suit in the court or with the Controller, the appellant was not entitled to claim any benfit under Section 17(4) of the Act. It was further observed that if indeed the tenant wanted to claim benefit under Section 17(4), he should have withdrawn the invalid deposits made in the office of the Rent Controller and deposited the amount afresh in terms of Section 17(1) of the Act. Upholding the view of the High Court this Court observed :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 120 - B P Singh - Full Document

Birdi Chand vs Nanak Chand on 23 July, 2013

17) In Ram Bagas Taparia Vs. Ram Chandra Pal : (1989) 1 SCC 257, the Supreme Court considered the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. That Act provided that payment shall be made by 15th of succeeding month. In that case, tenant claimed benefit of Section 17(4) of the Act. High Court held that since the tenant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 17(1) because he did not deposit the rent under Section 17(1) within one month from the date of service of summons on him or from the date of his appearance in the suit in the court or with the controller, he would be guilty of default in making payment of rent.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Smt Rekha Devi vs Buniyad Husain And Another on 12 August, 2015

In view of the aforesaid principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Atma Ram (supra), it has to be held that the tenant must comply with the requirements of Order XV Rule 5 CPC and make the deposits strictly in accordance with the procedure contained therein. A deposit which is not made in consonance with the aforesaid Rule cannot enure to the benefit of the tenant and, therefore only that amount can be deducted from the "monthly amount" required to be deposited by the tenant during the pendency of the suit which is specifically mentioned in Explanation 3 to Rule 5(1) of Order XV CPC.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - U C Dhyani - Full Document
1   2 Next