Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd. vs Shakti Kumar on 8 October, 1985

Sh. Tajuddin vs Mohd. Jamal on 24 December, 2018

(i) In Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd. Vs. Shakti Kumar RCT No. 23/17 Tajuddin & ors. vs. Mohd Jamal & Ors. Page 8 of 12 1986(1) AIR CJ 2016 wherein it has been held that in the demand notice there must be demand of arrears of rent and mere statement of arrears without anything more is not sufficient. Here in this case, there is specific demand of arrears of rent from 01.01.2002 to 30.04.2002 at the rate of Rs.40/­ per month, so this judgment is not applicable to the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bijender Gupta vs Sh. Hardwari Lal on 6 March, 2020

11. It is settled law that to maintain an eviction petition U/s 14 (1) (a), the following ingredients are to be proved; ­ (i) relationship of landlord and tenant; (ii) existence of arrears of rent legally recoverable on the date of notice of demand; (iii) service of notice of demand in the manner provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act; and (iv) failure of the tenant to pay or tender the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date of service of notice. [M/s. Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd. v. Shakti Kumar 1986 (1) RCJ 217 Daulat Ram v. Som Nath 1981 (1) RCJ 220 (Del.)] Consideration of evidence regarding the ground of non­payment of rent
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surjeet Kapoor vs Smt. Neelam on 7 February, 2013

In Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd. v. Shakti Kumar 22 DRJ 1986 (10) it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Hindustan Everest's case (supra) as follows:­ "This notice is an unconditional notice terminating the tenancy. It did say that the tenant was in arrears of rent but it did not demand the rent. Proviso (a) requires the service of a "notice of demand for the arrear". The word 'demand' has to be given its ordinary meaning. 'Demand' according to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (New Edition) means the asking for what is due : the amount of any article, commodity, etc., that consumers will buy : inquiry". According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary it means 'the act of demanding or asking esp. with authority : a peremptory request : the asking or seeking for what is due or claimed as due : the right or title in virtue of which something may be claimed : a thing or amount claimed to be due". Giving the ordinary meaning to the word "demand" and read in the context in which his word had been used the expression 'notice of demand' used in the proviso (a) means a notice asking the tenant to pay the arrears of rent. In other words, the tenant must be called upon to pay the arrears or rent. Low, no doubt, does not require that a demand notice should be in any prescribed form. Particular words are not required to be used but the notice must make a demand of arrears of rent. For making the demand any proper word connoting the demand could be used. A mere statement of arrears without anything more is not sufficient. The main purpose of 'the act' is to protect the tenant from eviction. The requirement of the service of notice of demand in clause (a) is to afford and opportunity to the tenant to pay the arrears of rent within E­38/04 Surjeet Kapoor v. Smt. Neelam & Anr. Page 11 of 12 two months of the service of notice of demand. The purpose could not be achieved only when the demand is made. The tenant must be asked to pay rent or face eviction. In the absence of the demand it cannot be said that the tenant had been given the required opportunity to save his tenancy from the consequences of default by not paying the rent."
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Asha Rani vs Deepak Chauhan on 29 November, 2012

In the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble High Court in Hindustan Everest's case(supra), by way of notice of demand, the landlord must inform the tenant all the amount of arrears of rent dues but in the notice, the petitioner has called upon the E­323/08 Smt. Asha Rani v. Deepak Chauhan Page 10 of 11 respondent to pay the rent @ Rs.5000/­ from 01.07.07. This is not a valid notice. It is also a settled law that increase of rent from the contractual rent under the DRC Act can only be done by recourse to Section 6 A of the DRC Act and an unilateral notice increasing rent beyond 10% is not permissible under Section 6A of the DRC Act and cannot be acted upon.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bishan Kumar vs Deepak Chauhan on 29 November, 2012

In the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble High Court in Hindustan Everest's case(supra), by way of notice of demand, the landlord must inform the tenant all the amount of arrears of rent dues but in the notice, the petitioner has called upon the respondent to pay the rent @ Rs.5000/­ from 01.07.07. This is not a valid notice. It is also a settled law that increase of rent from the contractual rent under the DRC Act can only be done by recourse to Section 6 A of the DRC Act and an unilateral notice increasing rent beyond 10% is not permissible under Section 6A of the DRC Act and cannot be acted upon.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kailashwati vs Sh. Jai Singh on 1 February, 2007

Now coming to the contention of Ld. counsel for the respondent as to whether legal notice was valid or not. There is no argument advanced on this fact by Ld. counsel for the respondent. Ld. counsel for the respondent has relied upon Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd. vs. Mr. Shakti Kumar, DRJ, 1986(10) 22, wherein a notice which did not terminate the tenancy of the petitioner in terms of Section 106 of T.P. Act was held to be no proper notice.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Maya Sood vs Anil K. Aggarwal on 6 March, 2012

It has been held in Hindustan Everest's E­725/06 Page 8 of 9 case (supra) that by way of demand of notice, the landlord must ask the tenant to pay the rent or face eviction but it was not so stated in the legal notice(Ex.PW1/6) sent by the applicant to the respondent. In view of above, I hold that notice of demand sent by the applicant to the respondent was not a proper notice of demand as required for seeking eviction under the proviso mentioned in clause (a) of the proviso of sub­section (1) of Section 14 of the DRC Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next